







• I 




*6V 




• • • ^v 








T H E 



BIBLE 



AGAINST 



PROTESTANTISM, 

AND IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH 

THE CATHOLIC FAITH, 

EVINCED IN A 

CONFERENCE BETWEEN A CATHOLIC, A PROTESTANT (EPISCOPALIAN), 
AND A PRESBYTERIAN. 

BY THE /"' 

RT. REV. DR. SHEIL, 

ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP. 
TO WHICH IS ANNEXED 

AN APPENDIX, 

PROVING- THAT 

THE "REFORMED" CHURCHES ARE DESTITUTE OF 
ANY LAWFUL MINISTRY. 



Many a time have they afflicted me from my youth ; yet they have not 

prevailed against me." — Ps. cxxix. 2. 

■ But they shall proceed no farther ; for their folly shall be made manifest 

unto men." — 2 Tim. iii. 9. 



first American Stereotype Edition, 

REVISED, CORRECTED, AND ENLARGED. 



Approved by the RT. REV. DR. FENWICK, Bishop of Boston. 



BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY THOMAS S W E 



_.lV OF 

1846. 

^wash\nQ£ 



**° 



£**V 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, 
By Thomas Sweeney, 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 



STEREOTYPED AT THE 
BOSTON TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY. 



DEDICATION. 



To the Reverend Gentlemen of the " Christian 
Alliance." 

GentlExMen : 

If I am rightly informed, you have devised, 
matured, and commenced a system of operations for 
the conversion of the Holy Father and his spiritual 
children to what you denominate the pure doctrines 
of Christ. You have engaged in an arduous enter- 
prise, and, no doubt, are stimulated by a zeal, if accord- 
ing to knowledge, worthy of high commendation. 

But, Gentlemen, it occurs to me that there is a pre- 
liminary difficulty in the way of your success, to 
which you have not paid sufficient attention. It is 
to be presumed that you have no wish to pervert us 
Catholics to infidelity, or to reduce us from our pres- 
ent faith to no faith at all ; for, since you profess to 
be Christians, and do by no means deny salvation to 
be attainable in our Church, you must hold Catholicity 
to be far preferable to infidelity. You cannot, then, 
restrict your zeal in our behalf to the negative work 
of destroying our present faith, but must extend it to 



4 DEDICATION. 

the positive and far more important work of convert- 
ing us to the truth as it is in Jesus. Your ambition 
is, no doubt, to convert us from error to truth. But 
here, Gentlemen, is the difficulty. What is the truth to 
which you propose to convert us ? or, in other words, 
what do you propose to give us in exchange for what 
we now have ? We beg to be enlightened on this 
point. We are not willing to leap in the dark. Be- 
fore we can entertain your proposition to forsake the 
religion of our fathers, endeared to us by the memory 
of the many persecutions to which it has been sub- 
jected, and hallowed by innumerable saints and mar- 
tyrs, we must be told distinctly what we are to receive 
in exchange for it. We cannot forsake it for we 
know not what . — for mere vague assertions and in- 
definite promises. We must first see what you have 
to offer, and we must compare that with what we now 
have, and judge which is preferable. 

Now, Reverend Gentlemen, with all due respect, 
we must say that you do not tell us distinctly what 
it is to which you propose to convert us. Nay, more, 
we do not see that you are in a condition to tell us ; 
for — pardon our presumption — you do not seem your- 
selves either to agree, or to be able to agree, as to 
what is the truth as revealed by our blessed Lord. 
You all agree to say that it is not Catholicity, but you 
are far from agreeing to say what it is. How, then, 
are we to know to what we are to be converted ? 



DEDICATION'. 5 

You represent internally hostile sects and conflicting 
doctrines. One of you cannot put forth a positive 
doctrine which another of you will not deny. We 
cannot join one of your sects without giving umbrage 
to all the rest. If we become Calvinists, the Armin- 
ians will denounce us ; if Episcopalians, we shall be 
scouted by Presbyterians and Congregationalists ; if 
Unitarians, we shall be anathematized by all the Trin- 
itarians. 

Nor is there any probability of your agreeing among 
yourselves. You have been trying, for three hundred 
years, to come to a tolerable understanding of what 
our Lord requires us to believe j but you have only 
multiplied your differences, and, where you have not 
become indifferent to all faith, you have only become 
the more irreconcilable one with another. To what, 
then, would you convert us ? What do you offer us 
in exchange for our present definite and certain faith ? 
Nothing but vagueness, uncertainty, contradiction, dis- 
pute. Now, Gentlemen, we beg you, before proceed- 
ing further, to pause on these facts, and either remove 
the difficulty they involve, or have the manliness to 
dissolve your " Alliance ; " lest, instead of converting 
us, you impress still more strongly on our minds that 
your covenant is with death, and your " Alliance" 
with hell. Truth is one — homogeneous in all its 
parts. So long as you are many-tongued, so long as 
you teach different and mutually contradictory doc- 
l* 



D DEDICATION. 

trines, we know you have not the truth, and that 
the end of truth does not, and cannot, approve your 
" Alliance." 

You will pardon me, Reverend Gentlemen, for ded- 
icating this volume to you. I dedicate it to you, 
because you, of all men, seem most in need of the 
lesson it is intended to teach, and because it may 
furnish s,ome hints which may be of use to you in 
your work of converting Catholics. Permit me to 
hope that you will take it under your patronage. It 
is an old book, indeed, and not now for the first time 
republished in this country ; but I presume it will 
have all the charms of novelty for the most of you. 

Very respectfully, 

Gentlemen, 
I have the honor to be 

Your obedient servant, 

THE PUBLISHER. 



TO THE READER. 



If the doctrine and morals of the first Christians had 
been such as they were continually represented by their 
adversaries then in power, no monster had ever been 
so frightful as the Christian religion. And if the faith 
and morals of Catholics had really those deformities, 
under which they are but too often painted, even from 
the pulpit, and in those very books which are put into 
the hands of the people as necessary preservatives 
against Popery, I freely own it were better to be of no 
religion at all than to be a Papist. 

What, then, was commonly said and thought of the 
first and best Christians that ever were in the world ? 
The most distinguished part of their Christian charac- 
ter was, that they utterly denied the Godhead, as is 
witnessed by St. Justin, Apol. 1, p. 56. Some ac- 
cused them of giving divine worship to the cross, as 
we find it recorded in Minutius, Felix, and Tertullian ; 
others said they gave it to the sun, to an ass's head, 
and other things not fit to be named. 

Next they gave it out that they had no men of sense 
or learning among them ; that they kept the common 
people in awe with superstitious fears ; that their 



pretended miracles were only tricks of art or magical 
enchantment ; that they were traitors to the govern- 
ment, and guilty of all the evils that happened to the 
state ; that, in their most sacred meetings, they feasted 
on the flesh of murdered infants, made delicious sippets 
in their warm and innocent blood, and closed at length 
the barbarous solemnity with all sorts of lewd and 
incestuous embraces ; in a word, that they were pro- 
fessed enemies to honor and conscience, to God and 
man. All these things are attested by Origen, Tertul- 
lian, St. Justin, &c, and show how true this saying 
of Tertullian is, viz., that " the truth and hatred of it 
began together. " 

This brief and faithful account of the general ha- 
tred of the Christian religion, in its very infancy, may 
serve for a key to many useful discoveries ; as, 1st. 
That a formed design of misrepresentation and slander 
is a sure mark that the cause in favor of which they 
are employed is a very bad one. 2d. That those 
whose faith and morals lie under the injustice of pub- 
lic censure, may comfort themselves with this reflec- 
tion, that nothing was ever more contemptible than 
religion in its greatest purity. 3d. That what our 
blessed Redeemer said to his followers, (Luke, c. 21, 
v. 17,) "You shall be hated by all men for my sake," 
was not confined to the primitive times. For truth 
always was, and always will be, odious to insincere and 
prejudiced understandings ; and the present age is so 
overstocked with such unhappy dispositions, that, if 
they had been as frequent in primitive times, few nations 



would perhaps have ever embraced the Christian faith. 
4th. That the same methods are still pursued against 
the truths of the gospel, as were at first employed 
against the gospel itself. My meaning is, that the 
character of the Catholics is as unfairly represented 
now, as that of the Christians was in primitive ages. 

I might appeal, for the truth of this, to an infinite 
number of Protestant and Presbyterian books and ser- 
mons, filled with such false characters, both of our 
faith and morals, as cannot but create the strongest 
prejudices against us. 

It is, therefore, as well to do away the many ill- 
founded opinions entertained against the Roman Cath- 
olic Church, which induced me to write the following 
treatise, as also by reason of several conferences that I 
had with two brothers which I have, who do neither 
agree among themselves nor with me in that faith 
without which St. Paul affirms it to be impossible to 
please God. Heb. c. 11, v. 6. Yet each of them con- 
tinually labors in order to persuade me and the other 
brother to be of his own profession ; but all their friv- 
olous reasoning and ill-supported arguments could 
never convince me to forsake that ancient religion, 
which only I find to be conformable to the express 
word of God. And after I had seriously studied what 
ground each of them had for his particular doctrine, I 
found out, at last, that not only they, but also the most 
learned doctors of their religion, do give me, and those 
of my profession, only their own conjectures and ima- 



10 

ginary fancies, for the word of God ; and this in all con- 
troverted points, which are between us and both their 
churches, in matters of religion ; which now I shall 
clearly show to all those that will be pleased to read 
and consider their doctrine in this treatise ; which faith- 
fully relates not only their principles and corresponding 
practices, bat also the truth of that religion which I only 
find to be conformable to the express word of God. 
And this I design (by the grace of God) to make clear 
to any discerning understanding ; not by any extraor- 
dinary style of language, or superficial eloquence, which 
is not the object of my heart or studies ; but the bare 
gaining of those poor souls, who, by false impressions, 
are led astray from the Church of Christ. " He that 
hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matt. c. 11, v. 15. 



TREATISE 

WHICH CLEARLY SHOWETH 

THE ONLY RELIGION, 

&C . 



SECTION I. 



Concerning Man's Free Will. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says, (Deut. c. 30, v. 15, 19,) 
" See, I have set before thee, this day, life and good, death 
and evil ; I call heaven and earth to record this day against 
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and 
cursing. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed 
may live." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
" that is not left to our choice ; for by Adam's fall into the 
state of sin, we have wholly lost all ability of will to do any 
spiritual good accompanying salvation," as our confession of 
faith declares, chap. 9, first agreed upon by the assembly of 
divines at Westminster, and afterwards approved by the gen- 
eral assembly of the kirk of Scotland, printed at Edinburgh, in 
the year 1650. Pray, my dear brother, get some of your 
learned ministers to show you (if they can) by some clear text 
of Scripture, that it is not in a man's power to do that which 
is able to advance him towards heaven, when he is helped by 
God's preventing grace exciting him ; for this is what you 
affirm, and the Catholics do deny it, for they say, that " men's 
free will is still enabled to do good or to avoid evil, and that 



12 

it is in their power also either to omit their duty or to do 
it, even when preventing grace is given them;" for this is 
what the council of Trent declares, (sess. 6, c. 5,) and you 
may perceive how conformable it is to the express word of 
God, in the aforesaid text. 

2. Whereas the Scripture says, (Jos. c. 24, v. 15,) " And 
if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this 
day whom you will serve." " No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " that we cannot choose, for the choice 
thereof is not left in men's power since the fall of Adam." 
And hence our Mr. Whitgift (in his Defence against the Re- 
ply of Cartwright, p. 473) accuses the ancient bishops, 
and writers of the Greek and Latin church, saying, that 
" they were spotted with that Popish doctrine of free will." 
Truly, brother, since your authors are forced to acknowledge 
that this doctrine of free will was maintained by the holy 
fathers of the primitive church, I know not any reason which 
should move you to believe your ministers, when they tell 
you, that " these holy fathers have been of their own reli- 
gion; " and moreover you have no reason to say, that " these 
ancient bishops, and those now of the Roman church, have 
not the express word of God, to rely upon in their assertion 
concerning men's free will. 

3. Whereas the Scripture says, (Eccles. c. 15, v. 12, 15, 
&,c.,) " Say not thou, He hath caused me to err; if thou wilt, 
thou shalt observe the commandments. He hath set water 
and fire before thee ; stretch out thy hand to which thou wilt. 
Before man is life and death, good and evil ; that which he 
shall choose shall be given him." " No, no," say the Protes- 
tant and Presbyterian, " we have lost that freedom of our will 
by Adam's sin." And this, therefore, our Whitaker declares, 
(in Respons. ad Rat. Campiani, rat. 1, p. 15,) that" himself 
would not believe the freedom of man's will, although Eccle- 
siasticus would affirm it a hundred times, that before man 
were life and death." Since you, brethren, do not much re- 
gard what this book declares, surely you will give credit 
to what these following texts (which you must own to be 



13 

canonical) do affirm; viz. " Behold, I do set before you this 
day a blessing and a curse : a blessing if you obey the com- 
mandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this 
day, and a curse if you will not obey the commandments of the 
Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way, which I com- 
mand you this day, to go after other gods which ye have not 
known." Deut. c. 11, v. 26, &c. You see by this text that 
one mio-ht choose either to follow the true or false Gods : and 
the same is further proved by the following words, which say 
thus : " The word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, 
David's seer, saying, Go and say unto David, Thus saith the 
Lord, I offer thee three things ; choose thee one of them, 
that I may do it unto thee." 2 Sam. c. 24, v. 11, 12. Pray, 
mark how this text expressly declares that " David might 
choose either of these three things " proposed unto him, and 
if you be not satisfied by what the Old Testament tells you, 
be pleased to take notice of what St. Paul tells you in the 
New Testament, saying thus : " Without thy mind I would do 
nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, 
but willingly." Philemon, v. 14. And he also says thus : " He 
that standeth fast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath 
power over his own will." 1 Cor. c. 7, v. 37. Behold how 
expressly St. Paul affirms that we have power over our own 
will, to do that which is less perfect, or that which is more 
perfect : " For he that giveth his virgin (saith he, v. 38) in 
marriage doth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage 
doth better." Whereby you plainly see that one hath power 
to do either of both extremes : may God's grace so enable our 
power, that hence the evangelists say, " But as many as re- 
ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of 
God." John, c. 1, v. 12. 

4. And how free our will comes to lead us to do evil St. 
James tells us in these words : " Let no man say, when he 
is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted 
with evil, neither tempteth he any man, but every man is 
tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and en- 
ticed," but hitherto sin, but when is the sin committed? The 
2 



14 

text tells you, saying thus : " Then, when lust hath con- 
ceived, it bringeth forth sin." James, c. 1, v. 13, &c. There- 
fore it is only then sin is hatched, when free will yields itself 
to concupiscence, so as to give its consent to what is sug- 
gested ; and it is for giving freely such an evil consent, God 
spoke to the Jews by the prophet Isaias, saying thus : " When 
I called, ye did not answer ; when I spake, ye did not hear ; 
but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I 
delighted not." Is. c. 65, v. 12. Pray, observe how clearly 
the word of God tells you that the people did choose to do 
evil, which they might avoid, if they wished ; otherwise 
Pharaoh's obduration would not be ascribed to his free will 
by the Scripture, saying thus : " But when Pharaoh saw that 
there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not 
unto them." Exod. c. 8, v. 15. And hence the Scripture 
says, " Why do you harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and 
Pharaoh did harden their hearts 1" 1 Sam. c. 6, v. 6. And 
so David crieth to us all, saying thus : " Harden not your 
heart." Psalm 95, v. 8. And the prophet Ezekiel says, " Cast 
away from you all your transgressions, and make you a new 
heart and a new spirit, for why will you die, O house of Israel 1 
wherefore turn yourselves and live." Ezekiel, c. 18, v. 31, 32. 
Though I have now showed unto you the true and Catho- 
lic doctrine to be conformable to the aforesaid unequivocal 
texts, yet I am afraid that your free will, by them proved, will 
choose the contrary doctrine taught by your ministers, who 
were never able to produce as much as one plain text of 
Scripture, which might prove their assertion therein. 



SECTION II. 

Concerning Chris fs giving sufficient Grace unto all Men. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says, (Matt. c. 22, v. 14,) " Many 
are called, but few are chosen." " No, no," say the Prot- 



15 

estant and the Presbyterian, " every one is chosen that was 
called, because there was none sufficiently called, but only 
the predestinate," as our confession of faith affirms, c. 3, 7, 
and 10. Truly, brother, neither you nor those who have 
composed your confession of faith can prove this doctrine 
of yours, by the express word of God ; for this clearly affirms 
the contrary, not only in the aforesaid, but also in the follow- 
ing texts. Our Savior says to the incredulous- people of 
Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem! Jerusalem! how often would I 
have gathered together thy children, as the hen gathereth 
together her chickens, and thou wouldst not ! " Matt. c. 23, 
v. 37. Behold how they would not answer to Christ's calling, 
who therefore says thus to them : " Behold, your houses shall 
be left desolate." v. 38. And then began to upbraid the 
cities, wherein most of his mighty works were done, because 
they repented not : " Woe unto thee, Chorazin ; woe unto 
thee, Bethsaida ; for if the mighty works which were done in 
you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have 
repented. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for 
Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you." Matt. 
c. 11, v. 20, &/C. Do you perceive, brother, by this text of 
plain Scripture, that though the Jews did not then repent, 
yet that Christ labored sufficiently to that end? and hence St. 
Paul declares, that he said to Israel, " All the day long I have 
stretched forth my hand unto a disobedient and gainsaying 
people." Rom. c. 10, v. 21. " I have called, and ye have 
refused ; I have stretched forth my hand, and no man re- 
garded ; but ye have set at nought all my counsel." Prov. 
c. 1, v. 24, 25. " What could have been done more to my 
vineyard, that I have not done in it 1 " Isa. c. 5, v. 4. Why, 
then, did they not answer, as your ministers do now-a-days, 
that he did not call them sufficiently ? But this they had not 
to say, as is evidently proved by the ensuing texts, saying 
thus : " Behold, I stand at the door and knock ; if any man 
hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him." 
Rev. c. 3, v. 20. " Turn ye, turn ye from your wicked 



16 

ways, for why will ye die, O house of Israel ? " Ezek. c. 
33, v. 11. 

2. Behold how he tells them all that they were sufficiently 
incited ; otherwise vainly he had said, " Why will ye die, O 
house of Israel 1 " for they might reply, saying, that they 
could not but die, because thou givest us not the grace to 
live; but this excuse they could not allege; otherwise St. 
Paul would not have said the following words : " We beseech 
you that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." 2 Cor. 
c. 6, v. 1. " Who willeth all men to be saved, and to come 
to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim. c. 2, v. 4. " Dcst 
thou contemn the riches of his goodness, patience, and lon- 
ganimity, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee 
to repentance T but according to the hardness of thy heart, 
thou heapest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath." 
Rom. c. 2, v. 4, 5. I beseech you to take notice how men 
are able to contemn the very riches of God's goodness, who 
still gives sufficient grace to every one, and, with so much 
patience and longanimity, expects the effect of that grace 
which is frustrated by the impenitent sinner. Of such a soul 
it is said, " I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and 
she repented not ; behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them 
that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except 
they repent of their deeds." Rev. c. 2, v. 21, 22. Surely, 
brother, you would not be so senseless as to blame the crip- 
ple for not running, or the blind for not seeing : why, then, 
would you imagine God to be so cruel and so unmerciful, 
that he would not only blame, but also condemn poor souls 1 
If he had not offered them sufficient grace wherewith they 
might repent, if they had pleased, is he that most clement 
Father whom the Scripture tells you " not to be willing that 
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," 
(2 Pet. c. 3, v. 9,) by that grace which he daily offers to 
them? as you have now plainly seen by these twelve direct 
texts of Scripture, produced in this section. 



17 

SECTION III. 

Concerning Christ's dying for all Mankind. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says (Rom. c. 5, v. 6) that 
** Christ died for the ungodly." " No, no," say the Prot- 
estant and Presbyterian, " Christ died for none, but only for 
the elect, as our confession of faith declares, ch. 3." Indeed, 
brother, I acknowledge that this is some of your doctrine in 
that chapter ; yet I know that St. Paul was not of your 
opinion herein, as you may see by what he says in this text ; 
but I believe that your learned ministers did not consult with 
him, when first they began to teach this strange doctrine of 
theirs, which you may further know to be false by the texts 
of Scripture which I have produced in the last section, for 
that sufficient grace, which God offers to all men, proceeds 
only from Christ's death, and therefore it necessarily follows 
that Christ died for all them to whom the grace is offered ; 
for hence God said to Abraham, " In thee shall all the fami- 
lies of the earth be blessed." Gen. c. 12, v. 3. " In thy 
seed shall be blessed all the nations of the earth." Gen. 
c. 22, v. 18. And St. Paul declares that " the blessing of 
Abraham comes on the Gentiles." Gal. c. 3, v. 14. There 
is none therefore excepted from being partaker of this bless- 
ing, seeing that all the families and all the nations of the 
earth do enjoy it ; yet it is evident that many among these 
nations and families are reprobates, for " many are called, 
but few are chosen." Matt. c. 22, v. 14. Therefore repro- 
bates do enjoy many blessings by Christ's death, which could 
not happen if Christ had not died for them ; the truth hereof 
is further proved by the ensuing texts : " Despisest thou the 
riches of his goodness, patience, longanimity, that, after thy 
hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up unto thy- 
self wrath against the day of wrath ] " Rom. c. 2, v. 4, 5. 
Pray, who does this but the reprobate ? And if Christ had not 
died for him, why would St. John say that "he is the pro- 
2* 



18 

pitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the 
sins of the whole world " ? 1 John, c. 2, v. 2. Surely the 
whole world comprehends more reprobates than elects; he, 
therefore, who died for the sins of the whole world, died for 
the sins of the reprobate. 

2. And if Christ had died only for the sins of the elect, 
wherefore should St. Paul warn us not to be the occasion of 
damnation to those for whom Christ died ? " Destroy not 
him," saith he, "with thy meat, for whom Christ died." 
Rom. c. 14, v. 15. He, therefore, for whom Christ died may 
be destroyed, and eternally perish ; which. St. Paul further 
proves, saying thus : " Through thy knowledge shall thy 
weak brother perish, for whom Christ died." 1 Cor. c. 8, v. 
11. " There shall be false teachers among you, {have a care 
of them, brother,) who privily shall bring in damnable here- 
sies, even denying the Lord (as you deny his real presence 
in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist) that bought them, 
and bring upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Pet. c. 2, 
v. 1. Do you not see here, by clear Scripture, how Christ 
bought, at the price of his precious blood, the sons of perdi- 
tion 1 which, by their own false doctrine, do bring swift 
destruction upon themselves and upon their flock ; " For the 
love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that 
if one died for all, then were all dead." 2 Cor. c. 5, v. 14. 
St. Paul had not proved by Christ's dying for all, that all 
were dead ; if any man could be found for whom Christ did 
not die, and lest any would presume to say that such a man 
could be found, St. Paul's next words are these : " Christ 
died for all." v. 15. The council of Trent, citing these 
words of St. Paul, says thus: "But though he died for all, 
yet all receive not the benefit of his death, but only those to 
whom the merit of his passion is communicated." Sess. 6, 
c. 3. Which words are conformable to those of St. Paul, 
saying thus : " We trust in the living God, who is the Savior 
of all men, especially those who believe." 1 Tim. c. 4, v. 10. 
Christ, therefore, is a Savior to all men, by giving what suffi- 
ceth to save them, (see sect. 2 and 5, n. 7 ;) but this suf- 



19 

ficiency is effectual to salvation only in the truly faithful, 
whose faith and works are not disagreeable to the word of 
God ; therefore he is said to be chiefly a Savior to such 
people, though he did not die only for them, but also for all 
mankind, as St. Paul expressly declares, saying thus : " As 
by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to con- 
demnation, even so, by the righteousness of one, the free 
gift came upon all men, unto justification of life." Rom. 
c. 5, v. 18. 



SECTION IV. 

Concerning the Commandments. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says, (Ezek. c. 36, v. 27,) " I 
will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my 
precepts, and keep my judgments, and do them." " No, no," 
say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " that cannot be true, 
for our ministers do make us believe, in the Larger Catechism, 
annexed to the confession of faith, page 184, that no man is 
able of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly 
to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break 
them in thought, word, and deed." Truly, brother, I cannot 
but commiserate the great extremity to which you are re- 
duced, by believing this strange doctrine taught by your 
learned ministers ; for, on the one side, I see that they make 
you to believe that it is impossible for you to keep the 
commandments, even with all the grace that God can give 
you in this life; and, on the other side, I see that you are 
obliged to believe the word of God, which tells you that " you 
cannot enter into life, unless you will keep the command- 
ments." Matt. c. 19, v. 17. What now can you do, poor 
dupe 1 for I see that you are in an imminent danger of de- 
spairing of your salvation, and blaspheming God, who requires 
of you, under pain of eternal damnation, the performance of 
such laws, which by no means, as you imagine, can be 



20 

observed. Truly, the greatest tyrant that ever stood upon 
earth never arrived to that height of despotism, that he would 
oblige, under pain of death, his subjects to that which would 
be wholly impossible for them to do. Why, then, would you 
believe that God, who is the fountain of all justice, goodness, 
and mercy, would come to that height of injustice, that he 
would oblige us, under pain of eternal damnation, to keep 
the commandments 1 If this had been wholly impossible for 
us in our state, even with all the grace that he could give us, 
truly that would not only encroach upon his goodness and 
justice, but also upon his wisdom; for as it is certain that 
God made these laws, so it is no less evident that God useth 
admonitions and exhortations, propounds rewards, and threat- 
ens punishment, in order to induce men to observe them ; 
which would be a great folly and imprudence for him to pro- 
pose, if he had not thought that it might be possible for us 
to observe them. Therefore, since his laws, admonitions, and 
exhortations, cannot be but prudent and reasonable, he sup- 
poses the possibility of that which they enjoin, and where- 
unto they exhort. "For God," saith St. Augustin, (Ser. 61, 
de Temp.,) " could not command any thing impossible, be- 
cause he is just ; neither will he condemn a man for that which 
he could not avoid, because he is merciful." God, therefore, 
who, of his own infinite mercy, gives sufficient grace to all 
men, (as you have seen, sec. 2,) gives them also sufficient 
grace, wherewith they may, if they please, keep all the com- 
mandments. And hence St. Leo says that " God justly 
presseth upon us the doing of that, to the performance of 
which he offereth us his grace." Ser. ]6, de Passione. 
" That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us." 
Rom. c. 8, v. 4. 

2. Whereas the Scripture says, (Ezek. c. 37, v. 23, 24,) 
" They shall be my people, and I will be their God ; and they 
shall all have one shepherd ; they shall also walk in my judg- 
ments, and keep my commandments, and do them." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " we shall neither 
have one shepherd, since we accuse the bishops for admitting 



21 

of such a man, nor walk in your judgments, nor keep your 
commandments, because we are told by our learned ministers, 
the former to be a usurpation, and the latter to be wholly im- 
possible for us in this life, as our ?vlr. Willet affirms, in his Sy- 
nopsis JBaptismi, p. 564." Indeed, brother, you are not taught 
to maintain this doctrine of yours by the word of God, which 
you pretend to be your only rule of faith, and you may also 
know the truth hereof by the ensuing texts : " Moses called 
all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, Israel, the statutes which 
I speak in your ears this day ; learn them, and keep them, and 
do them.'' Deut. c. 5, v. 1. And after saying these words, 
he begins to tell them all the ten commandments, (v. 6,) 
which God would have them to learn and fulfil. David, speak- 
ing of the righteous, says thus of him : " The law of God is 
in his heart; none of his steps shall slide." Psalm 37, v. 31. 
Surely, brother, this man, who has the law of God in his 
heart, and whose steps do not slide, keeps all the command- 
ments. The Scripture says that " Noah found grace in 
the eyes of the Lord, and that he was a just and perfect 
man." Gen. c. 6, v. 8, 9. And we read that Job also " was 
a perfect and upright man, one that feared God and eschewed 
evil." Job, c. 1, v. 1. Enoch and Elias were so just and 
holy, that they are said to have " walked before God, and were 
translated." Gen. c. 5, v. 22, 24. 2 Kings, c. 2, v. 11. 

3. And most clearly is the justice of Abraham exalted by 
the mouth of God himself, saying thus to Isaac : "I will per- 
form the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father, and I 
will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and I 
will give unto thy seed all these countries, and in thy seed 
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because that 
Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my com- 
mandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. c. 26, v. 4, &,c. 
Luke also giveth an excellent testimony of Zacharias and 
Elizabeth, the parents of St. John the Baptist, saying thus 
of them : " They were both just before God, walking in all 
the commandments and ordinances of our Lord blameless." 
Luke, c. 1, v. 6. And the young man told Christ that " he 



22 

had kept all the commandments from his youth." Matt. 
c. 19, v. 20. And because he did thus, St. Mark says that 
" Jesus, beholding . him, loved him." Mark, c. 10, v. 21. 
Which Christ would not have done, if the young man had 
been a liar in what he said of himself; and Christ said unto 
his Father, " I have manifested thy name unto the men which 
thou gavest me ; and they have kept thy word." John, c. 17, 
v. 6. And hence St. John says thus : " Whatsoever we ask, 
we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and 
do those things which are pleasing in his sight." 1 John, 
c. 3, v. 22. And he says thus to the angel of Sardis : " Thou 
hast a few names, even in Sardis, which have not defiled their 
garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are 
worthy." Rev. c. 3, v. 4. You have seen now, by positive 
texts of Scripture, that it is not only possible for men to keep 
all the commandments by the assistance of God's grace, but 
that also very many have kept them inviolably; nay, St. 
Chrysostom affirms more that this, saying that " God com- 
manded nothing impossible, insomuch that many go beyond 
the very commandments." Horn. 19, in Hebr. But since 
some Protestants do say that the commandment of loving 
God with all our soul is the commandment which is impos- 
sible to us all in this life, hence T will show you this to be 
flatly against the express word of God. David says, "I have 
sought thee in my whole heart, and I have kept thy law." 
Psalm 119, v. 10,55. And God himself testifies this to be 
true, when he gave order to the prophet Ahijah to tell Jero- 
boam his misbehavior, in these words : " Thou hast not been/' 
saith he, " as my servant David, who kept my command- 
ments, and followed me with his whole heart." 1 Kings, 
c. 14, v. 8. We read also in Scripture that " Josias had turned 
unto the Lord, with all his heart, and with all his soul, and 
with all his might, according to all the law of Moses." 
2 Kings, c. 23, v. 25. Pray, what more is commanded, any 
where in Scripture, than this, which the word of God tells 
you Josias had performed ? 

4. Whereas Christ says, (Matt. c. 11, v. 30,) " My yoke is 



23 

easy and my burden is light." "No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " your yoke is uneasy, and your burden is 
heavy ; for there is none of us able, either of himself or by 
any grace received in this life, to keep your commandments," 
as our Mr. Willet affirms, in his Synopsis, p. 564. I beseech 
you, dear brother, to look for better authority, and cause your 
ministers to show you, if they can, whereabouts in Scripture 
do they find this doctrine of theirs. Have you not seen 
already in this section several texts of Scripture, declaring 
the falsity of their assertion herein 1 And does not St. John 
affirm that "God's commandments are not grievous"? 
1 John, c. 5, v. 3. And does not God himself declare the 
same, saying, " Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, for this commandment, which I com- 
mand thee this day, is not hidden from thee, neither is it 
far off; it is not in heaven, {where you say it shall only be 
fulfilled,) that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up to that 
heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it 1 
neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall 
go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear 
it and do it ? but the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy 
mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayst do it." Deut. c. 30, 
v. 6, 11, &/C. Mark these last words, by which you may 
plainly see that God gives us sufficient grace, wherewith we 
may fulfil his commandments ; as I have shown you, sec. 2. 
Take notice also of these following words of St. Chryscstom, 
speaking of God's commandments : " Hearing," saith he, 
" my precepts to be a yoke, be not afraid, for it is replenished 
with rare delight ; neither fear ye that I name it a burden, 
for it is light ; how, then, said he before, the gate to be narrow, 
and the way to be straight through tribulation ? O, that is 
when thou art drowsy or lazy ; but when with courage thou 
dcest that work, then the burden shall be light unto thee." 
Horn. 6, in Matt. 

5. Whereas Christ says, (John, c. 14, v. 15,) " If ye love 
me, keep my commandments." " No, no," say the Protes- 
tant and Presbyterian, " but if we love you, we will only have 



24 

faith in you, and declare openly that we necessarily must 
break daily your commandments, in thought, word, and 
deed." What, brother, do you pretend to know them who 
love God, better than Christ knows? who further says (v. 21) 
thus : " He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, 
he it is that loveth me." How, then, can you pretend that you 
love God ? Whereas you profess not to keep his command- 
ments, for " This is the love of God, that we keep his com- 
mandments." 1 John, c. 5, v. 3. Or why do you so foolishly 
believe that your naked faith will save you 1 Whereas St. 
Paul tells you, that " circumcision is nothing, and uncircum- 
cision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of 
God." 1 Cor. c. 7, v. 19. 

6. Whereas the- Scripture says, (1 John, c. 2, v. 3,) 
" Hereby we do know that we know r him, if we keep his 
commandments." " No, no," say the Protestant and Pres- 
byterian, " but hereby we know that we know him, if we 
keep not his commandments ; for our ministers tell us that 
they and we do know that we know him, yet they make us 
believe that neither they nor we will ever keep his command- 
ments in this life." Since, then, ye believe that ye can never 
keep the commandments in this life, why do you presume to 
say that you know God in this life 1 Whereas the Scripture 
says that " He that saith he knoweth God, and keepeth not 
his commandments, he is a liar." 1 John, c. 2, v. 4. You, 
brother, may now plainly see how wholly impossible it is for 
me to reconcile such manifest contradictions as are in this 
matter, betwixt the express word of God and your doctrine. 
Therefore I do rather choose to remain still a Roman Cath- 
olic, though I be all the days of my life persecuted for it in 
this world, than to become either a Protestant or a Presby- 
terian, and thereby forsake the word of God ; which you have 
now seen to be conformable to what the Church of Rome be- 
lieves concerning this point ; for the council of Trent only 
says thus of it : "If any man say that the commandments of 
God are impossible to be kept by a man, ever justified and 
constituted under grace, let him be accursed. Sess. 6, can. 



25 

18. And St. Augustin says no less, in the following words : 
" We accurse," saith he, " their blasphemy that affirm that 
God commanded any thing impossible to man, and that God's 
commandments cannot be kept by any man in particular, but 
by all men taken together." Scr. 19, de Temp. 



SECTION V. 

Concerning Faith and Justification. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says, (James, c. 2, v. 21, &,c.,) 
" Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, when he 
had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar? Was not also 
Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received 
the messengers, and had sent them out another way V " You 
see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by 
faith only." v. 24. " No, no," say the Protestant and Presby- 
terian, " we do not see that a man is justified by works, for 
faith resting on Christ and his righteousness is the alone 
instrument of justification, as our confession of faith affirms, 
c. 11." Truly, brother, I acknowledge that St. Paul says 
that a man is justified by faith, but I could never find out 
that text of pure Scripture which affirms that faith is the 
alone instrument of justification ; for that word alone, or only , 
could not be found from the first of Genesis to the last of 
Revelations, until your great apostle, Luther, first added it to 
that of St. Paul, (Rom. c. 3, v. 28,) in his German translation 
of the Bible. And when this high presumption of adding to 
the word of God was objected to him, he answered most 
impertinently, saying, that " the word alone should remain 
in his Bible, although all the Papists in the world should go 
mad at it." Tom. 5, Germ. fol. 141. But leaving the cen- 
sure of Luther's presumption and unreasonable expression to 
the authors, I will only here go forward in order to show that 
which I took in hand ; and in the mean time it is necessary 
3 



26 

that I should let my brother know the nature of justification, 
that thereby he may the easier come to understand which 
are the works that are excluded from justification, according 
to St. Paul, and which are the other works, by which we are 
justified, according to St. James. 

2. It is generally agreed upon that the justification of a 
sinner is the translation of one from the state of sin into the 
state of grace, or a changing of one from being an enemy to 
become a friend to God ; but that one might be so altered, 
there are some preparations and dispositions required to go 
before, in the soul of a sinner that is come to age, (of which 
kind only we speak.) For God first, of his own mere mercy, 
by his preventing grace, does so incite and call a sinner, that 
he may convert himself to God if he pleases ; and hence 
Christ says, " No man can come to me, except the Father, 
which hath sent me, draw him." John, c. 6, v. 44. Sec- 
ondly, a sinner being so awakened by the divine grace, con- 
ceiving " faith by hearing," (Rom. c. 10, v. 17,) doth believe 
all things to be true, which are revealed and promised by 
God, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ ; " for 
without faith it is impossible to please him." Heb. c. 11, v. 6. 
Thirdly, this faith representing God to be a severe punisher 
of sins, there ariseth, in a sinner thus disposed by faith, a fear 
of God's judgment, with which the soul is profitably terrified; 
"for the fear of our Lord is the beginning of wisdom." 
Prov. c. 1, v. 7. " And whoever is without fear, cannot be 
justified." Eccles. c. 1, v. 28. Fourthly, the soul of a sinner 
being thus terrified, it is raised up again to hope by the same 
faith which represents God to be most merciful in forgiving 
sins ; and hence St. Paul says that " we are saved by hope." 
Rom. c. 8, v. 24. Fifthly, upon this hope and confidence in 
the divine mercy there ariseth the love of God in the soul, 
and also a hatred, and a detestation of the sin, a sorrow and 
grief for what evil is past, and a firm resolution of a better 
life for the future. 

3. Now, all these former dispositions, viz., faith, hope, love, 
&<c., being placed in the soul, the infusion of justifying grace 



27 

doth follow; and although faith is the first disposition of the 
soul to this justification, yet these other virtues are also neces- 
sary, " for the house of God," saith St. Augustin, " is founded 
by faith, raised up by hope, and perfected by charity." Ser. 
22, de Verb. Apost. And as one may truly say, in this sense, 
that faith doth justify, viz., as a fundamental and radical dis- 
position to justification, so one may also say, with no less 
truth, that fear, hope, love, and repentance, do likewise justify, 
to wit, as secondary dispositions proceeding from faith, because 
these virtues do also fitly dispose the soul to receive the form 
of justice, and the Scriptures do ascribe forgiveness of sins, 
salvation, or justification, to them in this sense, as they do to 
faith in the other sense. For our Savior told Mary Magda- 
lene that " many sins were forgiven her, because she loved 
much." Luke, c. 7, v. 47. And St. Paul says thus : "If I 
should have all faith, (take notice of these words, viz., "All 
Faith") so that I should move mountains, and have not 
charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor. c. 13, v. 2. And after num- 
bering faith, hope, and charity, he says thus, (v. 13,) that 
" the greater of these three is charity; " and hence he further 
says the following words : " But above all things have charity, 
which is the bond of perfection." Colos. c. 3, v. 14. And he 
also says that " Christ became the author of eternal salvation 
to all that obey him." Heb. c. 5, v. 9. You may now per- 
ceive, brother, by these texts of Scripture, how the word of 
God expressly attributes forgiveness of sins and salvation to 
those other virtues above mentioned ; nay, you may see that 
St. Paul, who, you pretend, favors your own doctrine, doth 
extol charity above all faith. 

4. And, notwithstanding your great calumnies of the Cath- 
olic Church, yet she professeth openly that no man, by any 
faith or works, can merit the grace of justification ; for the 
council of Trent says the following words : " We are said to 
be freely justified, because none of these things which pre- 
cede justification, whether faith or works, do merit the grace 
of justification." Sess. 6, c. 8. All the causes therefore of 
our justification are these following : the efficient cause is 



28 

our merciful God; the meritorious, our Lord Jesus Christ; 
the final cause is the glory of God and Christ, and life ever- 
lasting ; and the formal cause is the justice of God, not that 
by which he himself is just, but that by which he makes us 
just, and with which we being endowed, are renewed in the 
spirit of our mind, and are not only reputed, but are truly 
just ; for the grace of justification consisteth in two things, to 
wit, in remission of sin, and in inward sanctification, as I 
shall let you see in the sixth paragraph. In the mean time, 
take notice of that other, which the Catholics do call the 
second justification, for it is that by which one is not of im- 
pious made just, but of just he is made more just, and of 
being a friend he is made more intimate with God, and so it 
is acquired by doing works of justice and piety, by which 
one that is in the state of grace purchased to himself a further 
augmentation of grace; but observe that the Roman Catho- 
lics do affirm that the grace of God must be still aiding and 
assisting him all the time he doth any meritorious works 
which deserve this augmentation of grace, as may be seen by 
the council of Trent. Sess. 6, c. 16. And they add that 
even to such actions, done in that manner, God, if he had 
pleased, might have given no reward ; but he was pleased to 
promise, and to give a reward for them out of his own free, 
gracious goodness, being moved, by the merits and passion of 
Jesus Christ, to accept, for his sake, all such good works, as 
rewardable; which doctrine you may know to be true, by 
the express words of Scripture. This I will produce, sec. 6. 

5. You may now easily understand, brother, by what I 
have said here, in the three last numbers, which by these 
works that St. Paul excludes from justification, when he says 
that " a man is justified by faith, without the works of the 
law." Rom. c. 3, v. 28. For he does not exclude the works 
which are done by men that are in the state of grace, but only 
the works of the law of nature done by the Gentiles, who had 
no true faith, and the works of the written law done by the 
Jews, who had not faith in Jesus Christ, whom they deny to 
have been the true Messiah of which the Scriptures spoke ; 



29 

and that this is St. Paul's meaning you may easily know by 
what he says in the three preceding texts of his, produced in 
paragraph No. 4 ; and also by these other following texts of 
his ; for he says that " Christ dwells by faith in the heart, 
rooted in charity," (Ephes. c. 3, v. 17 ;) and that " neither 
circumcision is any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith 
which worketh by charity or love." Gal. c. 5, v. 6. And he 
further says that " circumcision is nothing, and uncircum- 
cision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of 
God." 1 Cor. c. 7, v. 19. So you may now perceive, by these 
very texts of St. Paul, that he doth only exclude from justifi- 
cation the former works of the Gentiles, and of the incredu- 
lous Jews, and not the works of grace which do follow faith ; 
for they do justify, that is, they dispose the soul unto the first 
justification, as faith itself doth ; and they proceed from faith, 
as you have seen in paragraph No. 2. And therefore they 
are not only the works of the law of nature done by the Gen- 
tiles, nor the works of the written law done by the incredu- 
lous Jews, but the works of grace that follow true faith. And 
hence St. Augustin reconciles these former texts of St. Paul 
and St. James, saying thus of them : " The sentences of Paul 
and James are not contrary to one another, when one affirms 
that a man is justified by faith without works, and the other 
saith that faith is in vain without works ; for St. Paul speaks 
of works that go before faith, and St. James speaks of works 
that follow faith." Lib. 83, quest, p. 76. 

6. Whereas the Scripture says, (Ezek. c. 36, v. 25,) " I 
will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean 
from all your filthiness." " No, no," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, " you will not clean us from our filthiness, for 
in our justification we are never cleansed by infusing right- 
eousness into our souls, but only the righteousness of Christ is 
imputed to us, by which our sins, still remaining in our souls, 
are then only covered ; as our confession of faith declares," 
c. 11. Truly, brother, though that is the doctrine which you 
are taught to believe by your confession of faith, yet it is 
not that doctrine which the word of God teach eth you to 
3* 



30 

believe, as evidently appears by the ensuing texts : St. Paul 
says that " the love of God is sowed in our hearts by the Holy 
Ghost, which is given unto us." Rom. c. 5, v. 5. And he 
also says thus: " that ye put off concerning the former con- 
versation the old man, and be renewed in the spirit of your 
mind, and that you put on the new man, which after God is 
created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephes. c. 4, 
v. 22, &c. And speaking of Christ, he says that " he had by 
himself purged our sins." Heb. c. 1, v. 3. And St. Peter 
affirms no less, saying thus : " Repent ye, therefore, and be 
converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Acts, c. 3, v. 
19. Behold how the word of God tells you that the sins are 
not covered in our souls, but are wholly blotted out, and 
entirely taken away; and hence St. John says that " Christ 
is the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world." 
John, c. 1, v. 29. And he also says the following words : 
" If we walk in the light, as he is the light, we have fellow- 
ship one with another ; and the blood of Jesus Christ, his 
Son, cleanseth us from all sins. If we confess our sins, he is 
faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from 
all unrighteousness." 1 John, c. 1, v. 7, 9. Nay, the 
prophet says that, at our conversion, " he will cast all our 
sins into the depth of the sea." Micah, c. 7, v. 19. But 
this he could not do by only covering them in our souls, as 
you falsely allege, pretending that the following text favors 
you therein : " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth 
not impute iniquity, and whose sins are covered, (it followeth) 
and in whose spirit there is no guile." Psalm 32, v. 1, 2. I see 
you never produce these last words, viz., " in whose spirit 
there is no guile," because they do evidently prove that those 
sins which are covered from God's eyes must not be at all in 
the soul ; and therefore the former sins of the just, being so 
covered from the eyes of God, cannot be seen in his soul. 
For the Scripture tells you here, that in this man's spirit there 
is no guile, which would not be true if the sins had still re- 
mained in it ; and you may further see the truth hereof by 
these other words of the same prophet, saying thus : " As far 



31 

as the east is distant from the west, so far he has removed 
our transgressions from us." Psalm 103, v. 12. By which 
you see that the sins are wholly taken away from the soul of 
a sinner, at his true repentance and conversion ; for that 
great distance which is between the aforesaid points, viz., 
east and west, doth clearly evince that then the sin is 
utterly taken away from the soul of a sinner ; for hence 
David himself says thus : " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall 
be clean, wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." Psalm 
51, v. 7. But if we believe your doctrine, it behoveth him to 
say, " Purge me, and I shall not be clean, wash me, and I 
shall still remain as black as pitch, as filthy as the puddle, 
even with all the washing you can bestow upon me in this 
world." See sec. 19. No. 6. 

7. Whereas the Scripture says, (Exod. c. 32, v. 33,) " Who- 
ever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." 
" No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " you can- 
not blot him out of your book, because justification once 
obtained can never be lost again, as our confession of faith 
declares, c. 11." What, brother, do the authors of ycur con- 
fession of faith know this matter better than God knows it ? 
Did they never read what he says by the prophet, in these 
words? " Therefore, son of man, say unto the children of 
thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not de- 
liver him in the day of his transgression ; as for the wicked- 
ness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that 
he turned from his wickedness, neither shall the righteous be 
able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth ; 
all his righteousness shall not be remembered ; but for his in- 
iquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it." Ezek. 
c. 33, v. 12, 13. Do you not plainly see here, by the express 
word of God, that he who was once just, and consequently 
in favor with God, may afterwards die spiritually, and thereby 
lose the grace of justification, which he once had when he 
was just? Nay, Solomon's salvation is much doubted of by 
the holy fathers ; yet God himself said that he was once just. 
" I will establish," saith he, speaking of Solomon, " his king- 



32 

dom forever, if he be constant to do my commandments and 
judgments, as at this day" 1 Chron. c. 28, v. 7. You see 
that Solomon was at that day pleasing God ; but what he did 
afterwards the Scripture tells you, saying thus of him : " And 
he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred 
concubines; and when he was now old, his wives turned 
away his heart to other gods ; he went after Ashtareth, the 
goddess of the Zidonians, and Milcom, the idol of the Am- 
monites ; he built a temple to Chemosh, the idol of Moab, 
and in this manner he did to all his wives, who were stran- 
gers : therefore our Lord was angry with Solomon, because 
his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel." 1 Kings, 
c. 11, v. 3, &c. David says that " God hates all workers of 
iniquity." Psalm 5, v. 5. He did hate, therefore, Solomon 
for those iniquities which he had committed. I do not dis- 
pute, here, whether he repented or no, whether he was saved 
or no ; but without all doubt, he once lost his former justice ; 
and so did Nicholas, (one of the seven deacons,) who was 
once full of the Holy Ghost, (Acts, 6, v. 3,) yet he lost after- 
wards his righteousness, by falling into heresy ; for from him 
the Nicholites have borrowed their name. And St. John 
says that" he hates their deeds," (Revel, c. 2, v. 6,) because 
these people obstinately held certain points which were 
against the common belief of the whole universal church ; 
and he also says to the angel, or bishop, of Philadelphia, 
these following words : " Hold that fast which thou hast, that 
no man take thy crown." Revel, c. 3, v. 11. Pray, how 
could this bishop's crown be taken by another man, if he 
could not lose the grace of justification 1 Or, if we could 
not lose this grace, why would St. John say unto us all, 
" Look to yourselves, that we lose not these things which we 
have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward." 2 John, 
v. 8. I know that the translators of your English Bible have 
falsely translated this last text, contrary to the Greek text, 
that hereby they might obscure the meaning of God's words, 
and cause their flock to err, in giving only credit to what 
they were pleased to translate unto them ; but their dealings 



33 

herein avail them nothing in this point, of which I speak 
now, because it is sufficiently proved by several other texts 
of Scripture, and Christ himself says this of the matter : " If 
any man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is 
withered." John, c. 15, v. 6. By which kind of expres- 
sion you may plainly perceive that one might lose the grace 
of justification. " The foolish Galatians began with the 
spirit, and ended with the flesh." Gal. c. 3, v. 3. It is 
therefore St. Paul said the. following words to them : " Ye 
did run well ; who did hinder you, that ye should not obey 
the truth?" Gal. c. 5, v. 7. Behold how these people came 
not to obey the truth, who before did not only walk well, but 
also run well. It is for fear of such an unfortunate fall St. 
Paul said thus to the Corinthians : " Let him that thinketh 
he standeth take heed lest he fall." 1 Cor. c. 10, v. 1*2. 
And most clearly are these words of his to the Romans, 
saying thus : " Behold therefore the goodness and severity of 
God on them which fell, {take notice of these words,) severity 
towards thee, goodness if thou continue in his goodness ; oth- 
erwise thou also shalt be cast off." Rom. c. 11, v. 22. But 
how could one be cut off, if he could not lose the grace of 
justification ? And if this could not be lost, why should St. 
Paul bid the Philippians " to work out their own salvation 
with fear and trembling " ? Phil. c. 2, v. 12. Or why would 
he say thus of himself: " I keep under my body, and bring 
it under subjection, lest, perhaps, while I preach to others, 
myself may become reprobate, or be cast away"? 1 Cor. 
c. 9, v. 27. I have shown you now, brother, three-and-thirty 
evident texts of Scripture, in this section, which declare the 
contrary of what you are taught to believe concerning the 
doctrine of justification, though you have not, in the whole 
Bible, as much as one plain text to support these new notions 
of yours. Therefore I have reason to suppose that you will 
net be further seduced by them, in not embracing the true 
doctrine, so manifestly proved by the word of God, which 
you pretend to be your only rule of faith. 



34 



SECTION VI. 

Concerning good Works. 

1. Whereas Christ said to Mary Magdalene, (Mark, c. 14, 
v. 6,) " She hath wrought a good work on me." " No, no," 
say Luther (Tom. 1, Fol. 196) and Calvin, (Lib. 3, Inst, 
c, 14, sec. 9,) " she hath not done a good work in that action, 
for we teach that all the best actions even of the greatest 
saints are mortal sins." Here, brother, is some of your great 
apostles' and first reformers' doctrine ; and you may take 
notice how clearly it contradicts the former words of Christ, 
and also these other words of St. Paul, saying thus : " He 
who giveth his virgin in marriage doth not sin therein." 
1 Cor. c. 7, v. 36. But if we believe this strange doctrine 
of yours, he sinneth mortally, whether he gives her in mar- 
riage or no ; and if the young man, to whom Christ said, 
" If you have a mind to be perfect, go and sell all you have, 
and give it to the poor," (Matt. c. 19, v. 21,) had obeyed 
Christ, he would also have sinned mortally, and this by the 
advice of Christ himself. And so, instead of becoming more 
perfect, he would become a far greater sinner than he was 
before. 

2. Whereas St. Paul says, (Colos. c. 1, v. 24,) " I, who now 
rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is be- 
hind of the afflictions of Christ, in my flesh, for his body's sake, 
which is the church." " No, no, Paul," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, "Christ did not rqeuire of you or of any other 
man to suffer such bodily afflictions in the flesh ; for he did 
so apply the merits of his own sufferings to all those for whom 
he hath purchased redemption, that he requires nothing of 
them now but to lay hold of his passion by the hand of faith, 
as our confession of faith teacheth, c. 8, 11." Truly, brother, 
if you would once show me some clear text of Scripture which 
teaches you to believe this doctrine of your confession of 
faith, I might be thereby induced to give credit to what you 



35 

say herein to be true ; but since I am sure that you can never 
find out such a text in the whole Bible, methinks that I have 
great reason not to believe what you affirm in this matter, 
since I find it to be disagreeable to several plain texts which 
I read in the Scriptures ; and if you had taken the pains to 
read our books, you might clearly see by them that we be- 
lieve, though your ministers do tell you the contrary, that the 
passion of Christ in itself is of sufficient worth and value to 
satisfy for all the sins of the whole world, yea, of millions of 
worlds, and also for all the pains that is or can be due to these 
sins ; yet we say, and this according to the word of God, that 
Christ, by his unsearchable wisdom, knew it was fit to order 
it so, that the full fruit of his passion should not be applied to 
any but to those who would perform several things, which he 
requires at their hands for this effect ; not that there is need 
of this to supply any want, or value which might be in his pas- 
sion, but that there is need to do these things on our parts, by 
the virtue of the covenant and condition upon which the benefit 
of Christ's passion is granted unto us ; and your own minis- 
ters ought to acknowledge this to be true, if they had not a 
mind to contradict their own principles and practice ; for 
they tell you that you ought to be baptized, that you must 
lay hold of the passion of Christ by the hand of faith, that you 
must have true repentance for your sins, and that you must 
have a will to receive the body and blood of Christ; " for 
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his 
blood, you shall have no life in you." John, c. 6, v. 53. 
These are four things which commonly your own principles 
do require to be superadded, that you may enjoy the full fruit 
of Christ's passion ; and we add to them, that we must fulfil 
the commandments, as you have seen, (sec. 4,) and that 
consequently Christ requires of us several penal and laborious 
works, though in themselves they have no sufficient proportion 
to cancel the pains due to our sins, or to merit either the 
grace of justification (see sec. 5, No. 4) or the augmentation 
of grace ; yet they have virtue to the first and last effect ; but 
this virtue proceeds from the virtue of Christ's merits and 



36 

passion, which is communicated unto us by the performance 
of these things which he requires ; for this was his covenant 
with us, as I have hinted above, and this doctrine of ours is 
so far from derogating from our Savior's passion, that it 
honors it more than your doctrine, which denies that the pas- 
sion of Christ is sufficient to elevate and raise our poor 
endeavors of satisfying, to any ability of making real satisfac- 
tion. But let us hear how the express word of God confutes 
you herein. 

3. Whereas Daniel (c. 4, v. 27) said to Nebuchadnezzar, " O 
king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and redeem thy 
sins with alms, and thy iniquity with mercy to the poor." 
" No, no, O Daniel," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
" the king could not redeem his sins by any such works, and 
hence our Jacobus Andreas says (Condone 4, in cap. 21, 
Lucce) that " we have learned to be saved by faith only, 
and that we cannot satisfy by our fasting, alms, prayers ; there- 
fore permit that we may give over these things." Pray, con- 
sider yourself how directly your doctrine contradicts here 
the express word of God, which your brethren have falsely 
translated, that they might obscure the text, and use some 
subterfuge in expounding it to the simple people, who do not 
recur to the original, or to any other true translation of the 
Bible, (see sec. 24, No. 4;) but their shifts herein cannot 
bring them off, because this verity is declared by several other 
texts of Scripture. Tobias says, that " alms do deliver from 
death, and do purge all sins," (Tob. c. 12, v. 9 ; ) and that 
" alms do deliver from death, and suffereth not to go into 
darkness." Tob. c. 4, v. 10. And hence Ecclesiasticus says 
that " as water quencheth burning fire, so alms do expiate sin." 
Eccles. c. 3, v. 33. But since your ministers do pretend 
that they do know this matter far better than the authors who 
wrote these two last books, which they do not own to be ca- 
nonical Scripture, because they find them manifestly affirming 
that which they themselves deny, hence I will produce the 
authority of other books, which they acknowledge to be ca- 
nonical, and shall begin with that of Solomon, which says that 



37 

" by mercy and truth sin shall be forgiven, and by the fear 
of the Lord men depart from evil." Prov. c. 16, v. 6. And 
Christ himself says thus : " But rather give alms of such 
things as you have, and behold all things are clean unto you." 
Luke, c. 11, v. 41. Wherefore he exhorts us to the secret 
performance of our fasts, alms-deeds, and prayers, and he tells 
us that " otherwise we will lose our reward, but if we do 
them in secret, our Father, which seeth in secret, will reward 
us openly : lay up for yourselves," saith he, " treasure in heav- 
en, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where 
thieves do not break through nor steal." Matt. c. 6, v. 2, 4, 5, 
6, 16, &c. " Whosoever shall give to one of these little ones 
a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, Amen, I 
say unto you, he shall not lose his reward." Matt. c. 10, v. 42. 
" For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, 
with his angels, and then he shall reward every one according 
to his works." Matt. c. 16, v. 27. "Then shall the King say 
unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, 
inherit the kingdom prepared for you. For I was hungry, 
and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink, I 
was a stranger, and you took me in, naked, and ye clothed me, 
I was sick, and ye visited me, I was in prison, and ye came 
unto me." Matt. c. 25, v. 34, &c. Take notice of the 
word " for," because it is hereby declared that it is for 
doing such good works Christ will say to them in the day of 
judgment, " Come, ye blessed, and inherit the kingdom pre- 
pared for you," &lc. So, on the contrary, he will say to the 
damned souls, " Get ye away, ye cursed, into fire everlasting. 
For I was hungry, &lc, and ye did not feed me," &c. Matt. 
c. 25, v. 41, &/C. Whereby you see that the word "for" 
signifies the cause of their damnation ; and hence Christ says 
the following words : " But when thou makest a feast, call the 
poor, the weak, the lame, and blind, and thou shalt be recom- 
pensed at the resurrection of the just." Luke, c. 14, v. 13, 14. 
For this reason St. Paul calls alms-deeds the seed of glory, 
saying thus of it : " But this I say, He who soweth sparingly 
shall reap also sparingly, and he who soweth bountifully shall 
4 



38 

reap also bountifully, every man according as he purposeth 
{mark these last words) in his heart; so let him give not 
grudgingly, or of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver ; 
and God is able to make all grace abound towards you, that 
you, always having all-sufficiency in all things, may abound in 
every good work," (2 Cor. c. 9, v. 6, &c. ;) as it is written, 
(Psalm 112, v. 9,) " He hath dispersed, he hath given to the 
poor ; his righteousness remaineth forever." He encourages 
likewise the Philippians to give alms, and to do other good 
works, that thereby they might merit; for he says thus to 
them : " In Thessalonica, ye have sent once and again unto 
my necessity ; not because I desire a gift, but I desire fruit 
that may abound to your account. I have received of Epaph- 
roditus the things which were sent from you, an odor of a 
sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God ; but 
my God shall supply all your need, according to his riches 
in glory by Jesus Christ." Phil. c. 4, v. 16. And he com- 
manded the Bishop Timothy " to charge them that are rich 
in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in un- 
certain riches, but that they do good, that they be rich in 
good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, lay- 
ing up in store for themselves a good foundation against the 
time to come, that they may (mark these words) lay hold on 
eternal life." 1 Tim. c. 6, v. 17, &c. 

4. Whereas the Scripture says, (Psalm 19, v. 11,) that 
"for keeping God's precepts there is great reward." "No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " there is no reward 
to be given to us for any work that we can do in this life. 
And hence our Mr. Whitaker affirms (in Resp. ad Rati. 
Camp. rati. 5, p. 78) that ' St. Cyprian and all the fathers 
of those times did err grossly in teaching the merits of good 
works.' " Indeed, brother, if those fathers did err in teaching 
this doctrine, I know not how either you or your ministers 
can excuse the Scripture writers from being guilty of that 
error, which I find to be so often recommended and taught 
by them; and in further proof hereof, take notice what 
the following texts declare. David says thus : " The Lord 



39 

rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the 
cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me." Psalm 18, 
v. 29. And hence it is said, that " God is justifying the 
righteous, to give him according to his righteousness." 

1 Kings, c. 8, v. 32. " Be you strong, therefore, and let not 
your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded." 

2 Chron. c. 15, v. 7. "They who have done good things 
shall go forth unto the resurrection of life." John, c. 5, v. 29. 
" Be giad and rejoice, for great is your reward in heaven." 
Matt. c. 5, v. 12. And when Peter said thus unto Christ, 
" Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee, what shall 
we have therefore?" (Matt. c. 19, v. 27,) Christ did not then 
answer, saying, that they would not have, therefore, any 
reward at all ; but he made them a promise, upon that ac- 
count of following him, that " when he would sit upon the 
throne of his glory, that they also would sit upon twelve 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." v. 28. And 
hence St. Paul says that " every man shall receive his own 
reward, according to his own labor," (1 Cor. c. 3, v. 8 ; ) and 
that " our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh 
for us an eternal weight of glory." 2 Cor. c. 4, v. 17. " For 
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap ; for he that 
soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he 
that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlast- 
ing; and let us not be weary in well doing, {why so?) for in 
due season we shall reap, if we faint not ; as we have there- 
fore opportunity, let us do good unto all men." Gal. c. 6, v. 7, 
&c. Which to confirm, he brings in the example of Moses, 
" who refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 
choosing rather to be afflicted with the people of God, esteem- 
ing the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures 
in Egypt ; for he had (mark these words) respect unto the 
recompense of reward." Heb. c. 11, v. 24, &,c. And he also 
says thus of himself: " I have fought a good fight, I have fin- 
ished my course, I have kept the faith ; henceforth there is 
laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the 
righteous Judge, shall give at that day, and not to me only, 



40 

but also unto all them that love his appearing." 2 Tim. c. 4, 
v. 7, 8. Behold how St. Paul reckons out the good works 
that he hath done, by which he had advanced himself in piety 
and justice, being assisted by the grace of God, and rendered 
those works of his meritorious ; and hence St. Augustin, in 
his commentary upon this text, says, " He reckons now his 
good merits, that after them he might obtain the crown, who 
after evil merits did obtain grace. To whom could the just 
Judge render the crown, if he had not first, as a merciful Father, 
given him grace 1 and how had that been a crown of justice, 
if grace had not gone before, which justifies the impious 1 
How could that have been rendered as a due, if the first had 
not been freely bestowed." Aug. de Gra. et Lib. Arbit. It is, 
therefore, God's mercy to promise heaven to our good works; 
it is his mercy to give us that grace which confers all the 
meritorious value upon these works; it is his mercy to excite 
us by actual grace to perform such works, and to accompany 
and assist us whilst we work; but it is his justice and right- 
eousness to give that reward, which his mercy made these 
works able to deserve, so that now, as a just Judge, he re- 
wards our good works; and hence St. Paul says thus : " Now 
to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, 
but of debt." Rom. c. 4, v. 4. Christ therefore will say, in 
the day of judgment, these words of St. John : " My reward 
is with me, to give every one according as his works shall 
be." Rev. c. 22, v. 12. 

5. Against these former texts of Scripture, being in num- 
ber thirty-two, and five more, which I will produce, (No. 6,) 
my brothers have two texts, which they, by misinterpreting, 
do prefer before all these thirty-seven texts, and several others, 
which I might produce to the same purpose. The first of 
these texts, upon which they rely wholly herein, is that of 
Isaias, saying thus: "We are all as unclean things, and all 
our righteousness as filthy rags." c. 64, v. 6. To which I 
answer, that the prophet speaks only of those works done by 
us, when we are left to ourselves, without being aided by the 
grace of God ; and that this is his meaning you may evidently 



41 

know by these other words of the same prophet, saying, (v. 7,) 
" And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth 
up himself to take hold of thee." Pray, brother, is not this 
the very same doctrine which we teach, as you have seen, 
sec. 5, No. 2, 3, 4 ? Did I not tell you there, that we acknowl- 
edge that we are as unclean things, and that all our right- 
eousness is unworthy of any spiritual reward, and that we 
cannot stir up ourselves, by taking hold of God, until we are 
incited and helped by God's grace? But surely this is not 
the same as to say, with you, that these good works, which 
proceed from the grace of justification, are unclean, and not 
rewardable. Show me this by some clear text of Scripture, 
and then I will acknowledge that you have some colorable 
pretence to believe this new doctrine of yours ; or show me, 
if you can, which of the holy fathers, in their commentary 
upon that text of Isaias, did ever interpret or expound it to 
your meaning. I suppose no man of sense will blame me 
for demanding of you either of these two requests, as I show 
you my own doctrine by clear Scripture, and only desire of 
you to refer the interpretation of these obscure texts, which 
you produce in your own defence, to the holy fathers' judg- 
ments, in their commentary upon them ; for these men, who 
exceeded us in piety, wit, and learning, are more competent 
judges in this matter than either you or I can presume to be, 
since we are parties, between which the dispute is contro- 
verted ; nay, every one of us alleges that these fathers were 
of his own religion : recur you therefore with me to their 
commentaries, if you dare; and if you do this, then you will 
see how pitifully you are blinded by your ministers' conduct 
in this matter. 

6. Your second text is that of Luke, where Christ, after 
producing the similitude of the master and servant, says thus : 
" When ye have done all that ye are commanded, say, We 
are unprofitable servants." Luke, c. 17, v. 10. To which I 
answer, that the text only says, that by all we do, or can do even 
by God's grace, it profiteth nothing to God, for he depends not 
in the least upon any creature whatsoever ; but though we 
4* 



42 

be unprofitable servants in this sense, yet we are profitable 
servants to ourselves, for heaping up for us treasures in 
heaven, and for making " friends to us of the Mammon of 
unrighteousness, to receive us into everlasting habitations," 
(Luke, c. 16, v. 9 ;) which are things very profitable to us, 
and though we are in that other sense unprofitable servants 
to God, yet in regard of our services and obedience to him, 
he says unto us, " Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I 
commanded you," (John, c. 15, v. 14,) which is a thing of 
no small profit and honor to us. Pray, do you think that it 
is not very profitable to them that " left father and mother, 
wife and children, and what they had in this world, for the 
sake of Christ, that they shall receive a hundred fold, and 
inherit life everlasting " 1 Matt. c. 19, v. 29. Is it not also 
profitable to them to do good works in this life, who will say 
thus : " He hath made us meet to be partakers of the inher- 
itance of the saints in light" ? Colos. c. 1, v. 12. And is it 
not likewise profitable to them to do good works, to whom 
God will say the following words : " And they shall walk 
with me in white, because they (mark these words) are 
worthy " 1 Rev. c. 3, v. 4. Shall not they profit by over- 
coming, to whom it is said, " He that shall overcome, and 
keep my works until the end, I will give him (in heaven) 
power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of 
iron " 1 Rev. c. 2, v. 26, 27. " To him that overcometh 
will I grant to sit with me in my throne." Rev. c. 3, v. 21. 



SECTION VII. 

Concerning Works of Supererogation, and Austerity of 

Life. 

1. Whereas Christ said to the young man who told him 
he had kept the commandments from his youth, (Matt. c. 19, 
v. 20, 21,) " If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell the things 



43 

thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have a treas- 
ure in heaven." " No, no," say the Protestant and Pres- 
byterian, " if he has a mind to be perfect, let him not do so ; 
for our Mr. Willet says, in his Synopsis, p. 245, that ' he 
is an enemy to the glory of God, that changeth his rich estate, 
wherein he may serve God, for a poor.' " Truly, brother, I 
cannot give credit to this doctrine of yours, until I see it 
proved by some direct text of Scripture ; for I know it is 
directly against the express word of God, and against the 
known commendable examples of many potent kings and 
princes, who, leaving their worldly crowns and great riches, 
became poor religious monks and friars, in hopes that, in ex- 
change thereof, Christ would give them a treasure in heaven, 
as he had promised to the aforesaid young man, if he would 
renounce his riches, and give them to the poor ; and you 
cannot allege that this renunciation could not be any thing 
that might be wanting to the young man, to obtain life ever- 
lasting ; for Christ did only bid him, if he had a mind " to 
enter into life, to keep the commandments." Matt. c. 19, 
v. 17. Therefore that renunciation was only wanting to 
obtain that degree of evangelical perfection, as the very next 
text expressly declares ; and we read that very many of the 
first believers have followed Christ's advice herein, as you 
may see by the following text : " And the multitude of them 
that believed were of one heart, and of one soul, neither 
said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed 
was his own, but they had all things common, neither was 
there any among them that lacked ; for as many as were 
possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the price 
of those things which were sold, and laid them down at the 
apostles' feet, and distribution was made unto every man 
according as he had need." Acts, c. 4, v. 32, 34, 35. Pray, 
brother, tell me who commanded these first believers to re- 
nounce their riches, and to use that kind of way of living ? 
If they had a command from God for it, how can you excuse 
all those of your own church from being guilty for not 
observing that command ? And if they had not a command 



44 

of it, but that it was only counselled to them, that they might 
thereby come to be perfect, why deny that there are works 
of supererogation and counsel, which are not commanded 1 
Do you not know how expressly St. Paul contradicts your 
doctrine herein, when he says thus, " Concerning virgins, 
I have no command of the Lord, yet I give my counsel, (you 
translate falsely the word "judgment ; ") art thou loosed from 
a wife, seek not a wife ? " 1 Cor. c. 7, v. 25, 27. If this be 
a command, woe to your learned ministers, who do marry 
when they were free; and if it be not a command, what can 
it be but a counsel, which people may follow if they please ? 
You have another example of this in the book of Numbers, 
where it is said that " if a woman vow any thing, and bind 
herself with an oath, (mark these words,) she that is in her 
father's house, and yet in maiden's age, if her father knew 
the vow she promised, and the oath wherewith she bound her 
soul, and held his peace, she shall be bound to the vow ; 
whatsoever she promised and swore, she shall fulfil indeed ; 
but if, immediately as he hears it, her father doth contradict 
it, both her vow and her oath shall be void, neither shall she 
be bound to the promise." The same is said of the vows of 
a wife, that they should bind her, if her husband would hold 
his peace at them : but if he had contradicted them, they 
would be made void. Num. c. 30, v. 3, 4, &c. But who 
sees not that it could not either be in the power of the 
father to make his daughter's vows void, or in the husband's 
power to annul the vows of his wife, if they had vowed 
things which they were before obliged to perform by a pre- 
cept from God ? For example, if they should vow to fast in 
the feast of expiation, the maid's father, or the wife's hus- 
band, could not make void these vows ; for the law did oblige 
them to this, as appears by the following text : " Every soul 
that is not afflicted, {that is, which fasted not,) that day shall 
be cut off from among his people." Levit. c. 23, v. 29. So 
that you may plainly observe, that the word of God speaks, in 
the aforesaid example, of vows made to do that which they 
were not otherwise obliged by any precept from God, and 



45 

consequently it manifestly appears that there are works of 
supererogation, which are superadded to what we are com- 
manded ; and hence St. Chrysostom says that " God com- 
manded nothing impossible, insomuch that many go beyond 
the very commandments." Horn. 19, in Hebr. Which is 
further proved by that of St. Paul, advising those of Jerusa- 
lem to supply with their riches the want of their poor breth- 
ren, that they might be also supplied by the poor's abundance. 
" Herein," saith he, " I give my advice, for this is expedient 
for you, that now at this time your abundance may be a sup- 
ply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply 
for your want, that there may be an equality." 2 Cor. c. 8, 
v. 10, 14. St. Paul can speak here of no other abundance 
that the poor could have, but only of the abundance of these 
good works that they had done, for which they had no com- 
mand from God ; for if they would be obliged by a precept 
to fulfil them, these could be no abundance, but were neces- 
sary for their own salvation, according to that of Christ, Matt. 
c. 19, v. 17. 

2. Whereas St. Paul says, (Colos. c. 3, v. 5,) " Mortify 
your members, which are upon earth." " No, no," say the 
Protestant and Presbyterian, " we will not mortify our mem- 
bers ; for our Mr. Willet affirms, in his Synopsis, p. 254, 
that ' cruel and inhuman kind of chastising people's 
bodies, by fasting and other discipline, to be utterly unlaw- 
ful.' " Pray, brother, get some of your learned ministers to 
show you this doctrine by some evident text of Scripture ; 
and if they cannot produce you such a text, which I defy 
them to do, be you no longer seduced by them, in not believ- 
ing the contrary doctrine, which you see to be true, not only 
by the former, but also by the following texts : " And Jeremiah 
said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the Lord 
of Hosts, the God of Israel, Because ye have obeyed the com- 
mandment of Jonadab, your father, and kept all his precepts, 
and done according unto all that he commanded you, there- 
fore Jonadab, the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to 
stand before me forever," Jer. c. 35, v. 18, 19. You see 



46 

by these words how the austerity of the Rechabites pleased 
God, and how he had favored them for leading that austere 
life, for which they had no precept, but only the com- 
mand of Jonadab, their father, saying thus to them : " Ye 
shall drink no wine," which was the common drink of that 
country, " neither ye, nor your sons, forever ; neither shall 
ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have 
any ; but all your days ye shall dwell in tents." Jer. c. 35, 
v. 6, 7. Pray, show me, if you can, by some text of Scrip- 
ture, that this man was commanded by a precept from God 
to adopt that austere way of living, which also he obliged his 
children to embrace. If they had a command from God for 
leading that kind of life, how came all those of your church 
to be exempted from that command? And if Jonadab had 
not a command for it, why do you deny that there are any 
good works, but only those that people are obliged to perform 
by virtue of a precept ? Was Judith commanded to practise 
that austere mode of living which she led ? for she lived 
sixty-nine years in chastity, in an upper room, retired from 
all society, in continual fasting, hair-cloth, and prayer ; and 
when she began this course of life, she was both young and 
beautiful. Judith, c. 3, v. 5, &,c, c. 16, v. 11, 28. David 
tells you of his own austerity, saying, " I am weary with my 
groaning ; all the night make I my bed to swim ; I water my 
couch with my tears." Psalm 6, v. 6. " By reason of the 
voice of my groaning, my bones have cleaved to my skin ; I have 
eaten ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping." 
Psalm 102, v. 5, 9. " My knees are weak through fasting, 
and my flesh faileth of fatness." Psalm 109, v. 24. "At 
midnight I will rise to give thanks to thee; thy law is my medi- 
tation all day; seven times a day I praise thee ; mine eyes have 
anticipated the night-watches, that I might meditate in thy 
word ; I have anticipated the dawning of the morning, and 
cried," &c. Psalm 119, v. 62, 97, 164, 147, 148. Although 
St. John Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his 
mother's womb, (Luke, c. 1, v. 15,) yet his austerity was exceed- 
ing great, for it was foretold of him that " he shall be great in 



47 

the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink neither wine nor 
strong drink, and he shall go before him in the spirit and 
power of Elias; the child grew and waxed in spirit, and was 
in the desert until the day of his showing to Israel." Luke, 
c. 1, v. 15, 17, 80. That is, from his childhood until he 
was thirty years old, during which time St. Mark says of 
him, " And John was clothed with camel's hair, and a girdle 
of skin about his loins, and he did eat locusts and wild 
honey." Mark, c. 1, v. 6. Behold how he abstained from 
certain meats, and from certain drink ; and he did eat so 
sparingly, that Christ himself said of him, " John came 
neither eating nor drinking." Matt. c. 11, v. 18. You have 
another example of this kind of austerity in Timothy ; for 
though he had great weakness of stomach, and frequent in- 
firmities, yet he mortified himself to that degree by drink- 
ing water at all his meals, though wine was the common 
drink of that country, that St. Paul thought it fit to write to 
him, saying, " Drink not water, but use a little wine for thy 
stomach's sake and thy frequent infirmities." 1 Tim. c. 5, 
v. 23. By which words you plainly see, that before he did 
not so much as drink a little wine. But who commanded 
him that abstinence from wine ? or who commanded St. John 
the Baptist to practise that austere way of living which he 
led during his life 1 Truly, I find not in the whole Bible 
any precept, which obliged these saints to use that particular 
kind of life which they led ; and indeed, if neither of them 
could obtain no more glory in heaven, for the great morti- 
fications which they undertook willingly, and suffered so 
patiently, than he who used no austerity at all in this world, 
they were great fools for their pains ; whereas they might 
obtain the glory of heaven in the highest degree by em- 
bracing that easy way of living which Luther and Calvin 
have now prescribed to all their own disciples. But let us 
see further what says the word of God of that laudable and 
ancient way, by which those who were in former times most 
renowned, both for wisdom and piety, sought to attain unto a 



48 

higher degree of perfection in this world, and consequently 
to a higher degree of glory in heaven. 

3. Whereas Daniel shows the way by which he sought to 
come to a greater degree of perfection, saying thus, (Dan. 
c. 9, v. 3,) " And I set my face unto the Lord, to seek by 
prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and 
ashes." " No, no, O Daniel," say the Protestant, and Presby- 
terian, " that is not the right way of seeking the Lord, but 
this other contrary way of ours, which shows us to go to 
heaven, and to obtain there as much glory as you, without 
undergoing any austerity at all in this world ; for our Mr. 
Willet says, (p. 243,) that ' God is not better worshipped by 
fasting than he is by eating and drinking.' " Truly, I know 
not how to reconcile this doctrine to the word of God, which, 
as you may now perceive, expressly declares the contrary, as 
plainly appears, not only by the former, but also by the fol- 
lowing texts. God said by the prophet, " Turn ye to me, 
with all your hearts, and with fasting, with weeping, and with 
mourning." Joel, c. 2, v. 12. And this they have done, as 
appears by that of Nehemiah, saying, " The children of Israel 
came together in fasting, and sackcloths, and earth upon 
them." Nehem. c. 9, v. 1. But if God be not better wor- 
shipped by fasting than he is by eating, why did he bid these 
people to fast in this manner? Or why did the Ninivites 
please him rather by fasting, and using austerity, than they 
did before in not fasting, and in not using austerity ? Jon. 
c. 3, v. 5, &lc. Or why doth not the Scripture promise 
reward as well to eating and drinking as it doth to fasting? 
Matt. c. 6, 17, 18. Or why did our Savior affirm " devils to 
be cast out by prayer and fasting " (Matt. c. 17, v. 21) rather 
than by prayer and eating 1 How came St. John Baptist to 
teach his own disciples to fast, (Matt. c. 9, v. 14,) if they de- 
rived no benefit thereby 1 Or why did Christ himself say to 
his own disciples, that " the day would come, when the bride- 
groom should be taken from them, and that then they should 
fast ? " Matt. c. 9, v. 15. We read of holy Anna, the proph- 



49 

etess, that " she was of a great age, and lived with a husband 
seven years from her virginity, and that she was a widow 
about fourscore and four years, during which time she de- 
parted not from the temple, but served God (note these words) 
with fastings and prayers, night and day." Luke, c. 2, v. 36, 
37. You have seen now, by manifest scriptural evidence, that 
exercise by which God is served in this world ; and hence St. 
Paul says, " Behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, now 
is the day of salvation, giving no offence in any thing, that 
our ministry be not blamed, but in all things approving our- 
selves, as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, 
in necessities, in distress, in stripes, in imprisonments, in 
tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings." 2 Cor. c. 6, 
v. 2, &,c. " Always bearing about in our body the mortifica- 
tion of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made mani- 
fest in our bodies." 2 Cor. c. 4, v. 10. And hence he says 
thus of himself: "I keep under my body, and bring it under 
subjection, lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, 
myself become reprobate, or be a castaway." 1 Cor. c. 9, 
v. 27. And indeed, if St. Paul was, in this particular, right, 
your ministers are now much in the wrong for teaching the 
contrary of what he had practised in his own person, and left 
us an example thereof. And as for your part, brother, I leave 
it to your own discreet consideration to judge, whether it be 
safer for you, in conscience, to believe the doctrine of those 
who have these five-and-twenty clear texts of Scripture, pro- 
duced here and in the last number, to ground themselves 
upon, than the contrary doctrine taught by your ministers, 
who have not as much as one plain text of Scripture in the 
whole Bible which can prove their doctrine therein, but are 
forced to rely in this matter upon their own false conjectures 
and imaginary interpretation, which they make you believe to 
be God's true word. 
5 



50 

SECTION vin. 

The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

1. The order of doctrine requires that the definition of a 
sacrament in general should be known, before we treat of it 
in particular. Therefore, to prevent mistakes, I say that a 
sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, signifying 
the inward grace which it confers, when it is duly received. 
Whence it follows, that if there be seven such outward dif- 
ferent signs, consequently there must be seven different sacra- 
ments. But before I speak of those five which the Protes- 
tants and Presbyterians call bastard sacraments, invented by 
the Papists, I will treat of baptism and the Lord's supper, 
which they acknowledge to be true sacraments. 

2. Whereas Ananias said to Paul, (Acts, c. 22, v. 16,) 
" Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " but arise and be 
baptized, and wash not away your sins ; " for our Luther 
says, in his first Article, (condemned by Leo X.,) ' that 
to deny sin to be remaining in a child after baptism, is to 
tread both Paul and Christ under foot.' And hence our con- 
fession of faith affirms (c. 6) that ' by original sin we are 
wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body, 
and that this corruption of nature, during this life, doth re- 
main in those that are regenerated, and that it and all its 
motions are truly and properly sin.' " Pray, show me, if you 
can, this doctrine, by some clear text of Scripture, which 
will be more convincing than either the former or following 
texts, which expressly declare the contrary to what you 
affirm. St. Peter said thus to the Jews : " Be baptized, every 
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins." Acts, c. 2, v. 38. And St. Paul, speaking of Christ, 
says, that " we are buried with him by baptism into death, 
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory 
of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 



51 

life ; knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
that the body of sin (note these words) might be destroyed, 
that henceforth we should not serve sin." Rom. c. 6, v. 4, 6. 
And speaking of the duty of the husband to his wife, he says 
thus : " Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved 
the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify 
and cleanse it (take notice of these words) with the washing 
of water by word." Ephes. c. 5, v. 25, 26. And he also 
addresses the following words to the Corinthians : " But ye 
are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the 
name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 
1 Cor. c. 6, v. 11. "In whom we have redemption through 
his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." Colos. c. 1, v. 14. 
" According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of re- 
generation, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus, c. 3, 
v. 5. You see by these texts of St. Paul, how he was not of 
your opinion in this matter ; for if we rise from original sin 
by baptism, as Christ arose from the dead, how can that same 
sin remain in us? If the body of sin be destroyed by bap- 
tism, how can that very body still infect our souls? If bap- 
tism washeth away our sins, and sanctify our souls, how can 
we be defiled in all the faculties and parts of our soul and 
body ? If we be cleansed from sin, how can the filthiness 
of sin remain in us ? If we be born anew by the washing 
of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, how can 
the old man, or the death of sin, abide in us ? " What fellow- 
ship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what com- 
munication hath light with darkness, and what concord hath 
Christ with Belial ? " 2 Cor. c. 6, v. 14, 15. And how can 
it be truly said, that " Christ is the Lamb of God, who taketh 
away the sins of the world." John, c. 1, v. 29. Whereas, 
according to your doctrine, (here, and sec. 5, No. 6,) he never 
took away either original or actual sin, which are all the sins 
that ever the world had committed. St. Augustin, whom 
some of you allege to have been a Protestant, speaks thus 
of the matter : " By carnal generation, original sin is only 
contracted, but by the regenerating spirit, remission is 



52 

granted, not only of original, but also of the voluntary sins." 
Lib. 1, de Peccat. mer. et remis. c. 5. And " we teach that 
baptism gives remission of all sins, and takes away the 
crimes." Lib. 1, cont. ducts Epist. Pelag. c. 13. By these 
words of St. Augustin, you may plainly perceive that your 
doctrine was not that which the primitive church believed, 
but is rather of the Manichean heresy, as you may see by 
what St. Augustine says in the aforesaid chapter. 

3. Whereas Christ says, (John, c. 3, v. 5,) " Verily, verily, 
I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, and the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " that cannot be 
true, since our learned ministers do declare that the children 
who were never baptized can enter into the kingdom of 
heaven, and our confession of faith says, (c. 28,) that grace 
and salvation are not so necessarily annexed unto baptism, 
that no person can be saved or regenerated without it, or 
that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." 
" What, brother, do you imagine that either your ministers 
or the authority of your confession of faith ought to be pre- 
ferred or believed before the express words of Christ himself, 
plainly declaring the contrary l Are you not now ashamed for 
telling to me, heretofore, that you believed nothing of these 
controverted points, which are between you and me, but only 
that which the word of God tells you in your Bible ? whereas 
you may perceive that your whole study is to contradict 
God's word, and to believe no scripture which you find to be 
contrary to your minister's practice and imaginary fancies; 
and this is the reason which occasions you to connive now at 
your Presbyterian ministers, who permit your poor children 
to die without the benefit of baptism ; for they persuade you 
that it is not only unnecessary, but also unlawful, to baptize 
them, unless it be conferred publicly. Do not these people 
know that St. Paul was baptized privately by Ananias ? Acts, 
c. 9, v. 18. And the eunuch by Philip 1 Acts, c. 8, v. 38. 
But they who teach you to believe that God's commandments 
are wholly impossible to be kept, and make daily profession 



53 

to break them, may also by the. same rule let this pass along 
with the rest of their errors, and cause thereby your un- 
baptized children never to enjoy the glory of heaven. " Let 
not," saith St. Augustin, " according to our fancy, eternal 
salvation be promised to infants dying without the baptism of 
Christ, which the divine Scriptures do not promise." Lib. 
de Peccat. mer. et remis. c. 32. " Whosoever saith that such 
children shall have life in Christ who depart this life without 
the participation of the sacrament of baptism, that man cer- 
tainly contradicts the preaching of the apostles, and con- 
demneth the whole church, where such haste is made to run 
with children, because it is believed, without doubt, that 
otherwise they cannot be quickened in Christ." Epist. ad 
Hero. " Do not believe, do not say, do not teach, that chil- 
dren prevented by death, before they receive baptism, can 
attain remission of their original sin, if you desire to be 
catholic." Aug. Lib. de Orig. AnimcB. But since you, brother 
William, do not desire to be a Catholic, but to remain still 
an obstinate Presbyterian, you may therefore say and teach 
whatever your fancy imagines, and never scruple much to 
see your fancies contradicted by the express words of your 
own Bible. 

4. Whereas Christ said to his disciples, (John, c. 6, v. 51,) 
" And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will 
give for the life of the world." " No, no, Christ," say the 
Protestant and Presbyterian, " for the bread which you 
gave to your disciples was not really your own flesh, but 
only a figure or token of your flesh, as our ministers and 
confession of faith teach, c. 29." Pray, brother, show me, 
if you can, this answer of yours, by some express text of 
Scripture ; and until you show me that, I will believe that 
Scripture which tells me the contrary, and would not dis- 
believe it for the whole world ; nay, if an angel, and even 
your ministers, had told me otherwise, I would not give 
him credit ; for I know certainly that which Christ affirmed 
to be infallibly true ; and I do firmly believe that it was not 
terrestrial bread, or the figure of Christ's flesh, that was given 
5* 



54 

for the life of the world, but his true and real flesh, which 
suffered upon the cross ; and I hear Christ himself, who is 
the teacher of truth, positively affirming that he would give 
his disciples the very same flesh which he gave for the life 
of the world. And though the Jews that were then present 
suspected the truth, as you do now, of what he said, and 
murmured against him for affirming so, yet I see, by clear 
Scripture, (v. 53, &>c.) that our Savior, with many assevera- 
tions, affirmed it repeatedly to them ; yea, and suffered them 
and some of his own disciples then to depart from him, be- 
cause they would not believe this divine mystery. But do 
you imagine that Christ would suffer them to depart in that 
ignorance without telling them, as your ministers now tell 
you, that his only meaning was, that he would give his dis- 
ciples only bread and only wine taken in remembrance of 
his passion 1 or do you believe that Christ is a mocker and 
deceiver of men 1 to speak one thing, and to aver it with 
asseverations, which are equal to oaths, and to intend the con- 
trary ? or do you think that St. Mark, (c. 14, v. 22, &c.,) 
St. Luke, (c. 22, v. 19, &,c.,) and St. Paul, (1 Cor. c. 11, 
v. 23, &c.,) would belie Christ in this matter, and deceive us, 
by saying that " Christ gave his own body and blood to his 
disciples at his last supper " ? If he had not then given it, as 
you falsely believe, and though you know your own impossi- 
bility of producing any text of Scripture whereby your doc- 
trine can be proved, yet you rather rely herein upon your 
ministers' sinister interpretation, than believe the word of 
God, which expressly declares the contrary in four different 
places. 

5. As for these words which you produce in your own 
defence, viz., " Do this in remembrance of me," (1 Cor. c. 11, 
v. 24,) they were spoken by Christ after he had consecrated 
the bread, and after he told his disciples that it was his body 
which he then gave them, as is evident by the 24th verse of 
that chapter. Wherefore it is manifest that Christ's inten- 
tion, by these words, was to oblige us to remember that death 
which he suffered for our salvation, when we eat his flesh and 



drink his blood, and hence St. Paul concludes, (v. 26,) from 
these words, that we declare the death of our Savior as often 
as we make use of that sacrament ; so that we are so far from 
having reason to say that this solemn commemoration ex- 
cludes the real presence of Christ's body in this mystery, that, 
on the contrary, we see, by this remembrance, that then his 
very flesh ought to be really taken, seeing it is not possible 
for us to forget that it was for us he gave his body in sacri- 
fice, when we see that he gives us daily the same body to 
eat ; whence it follows that we ought not to consider that 
Christ does not command us only to remember him, but to 
remember him as he died for us, when we eat his flesh and 
drink his blood, even as the Jews, in eating the peace-offer- 
ings, remember that they had been immolated for their sins. 
Observe the connection and force of his words in this text, 
and you will perceive that he does not say simply that the 
bread and wine of the eucharist should be to us a memorial 
of his body and blood ; but he advertises us that in doing 
that which he then described, that is, in receiving his body 
and blood, we should remember him as he died bloodily for 
us. And his real presence in the sacrament makes this 
remembrance no less ; for Christ does not here die again, but 
this unbloody sacrifice is offered now in remembrance of his 
bloody sacrifice upon the cross; and that the aforesaid text 
ought to be understood in this sense, you may further see, if 
you please to read the holy fathers' commentaries upon the 
former words of St. Paul. 

Besides this powerful authority of Scripture, let us have 
recourse to good common sense, and I will prove to you that 
the words of Christ import a real and substantial presence. 
1st. Because all propositions like these, This is bread, This is 
a man, &,c, (unless you speak of pictures, or resemblances, 
which is not the present case,) are in all common discourse as 
currently understood of the reality and substance of the things 
specified, as if the words really and substantially were added. 
Nay, a man would be laughed at for a formal cautious cox- 
comb, if, pointing to a loaf of bread, he should say, This is 



56 

bread really and substantially ; or, coming from court, (for 
example,) he should tell me he had seen the king really and 
substantially ; because there is no difference between a 
thing and its reality and substance. In like manner, there- 
fore, when Christ said, This is my body, he declared as effect- 
ually that it was the reality or substance of his body, as if he 
had expressed it in the most formal terms. This is the com- 
mon language of mankind All wise men speak so, and all 
wise men understand it so. And if any man should pretend 
to mean otherwise, he would deservedly pass for a notorious 
equivocator, that says one thing and means another. 

I prove it 2dly. If Christ gave not his real body, but a 
morsel of bread, to his apostles, when he said, Take and eat, 
this is my body, then it follows that he called a morsel of 
bread his body ; which cannot be maintained without making 
Christ guilty of a downright absurdity. For nothing can be 
more absurd than to hold a morsel of common bread in a 
man's hands, and, pointing to it, say, This is the living body of 
a man; it being contrary to the common practice of mankind, 
and the common laws of speech, to call one thing by the 
name of another, with which it has no manner of resemblance 
or connection ; and that, too, without giving the persons to 
whom it is spoken the least intimation to serve as a key to 
let them into the true meaning of such an extraordinary and 
unheard-of manner of speech. 

I prove it Sdly. A sober man would be ashamed in any 
serious occasion to use a deceitful way of speaking, so as to 
call a thing by a name it was never known by before ; as 
for example, to take up a piece of brick, and say, This is a 
diamond. It is therefore incredible that Christ, who could 
say nothing unbecoming himself, should use this deceitful 
way of speaking in the most solemn action of his life ; when 
he was fulfilling the types and fgures of the old law, declaring 
his last will and testament, and bequeathing a sacred legacy 
to his church forever. 

Lastly. I prove it from the doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
land, as it is delivered in her own Church Catechism, which is 



57 

printed in all books of common prayer, and has the whole 
authority of that church to recommend it. Now, in this Cate- 
chism, to the question, What is the inward part or thing sig- 
nified? it is answered, The body and blood of Christ, which 
is verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful 
in the Lord's supper. 

This, then, is the doctrine of the Church of England, which 
expresses the real and substantial presence of Christ's body 
and blood in the sacrament as fully as any Papist can do ; 
for if verily and indeed be not the same as really and 
truly, and of full force to exclude a mere figurative presence, 
I confess I am yet wholly ignorant of the signification even 
of the most ordinary words, and it will be impossible to know 
what men mean, even when they speak in the plainest terms; 
so that it must either be owned that the words of Christ's 
institution import a real and substantial presence of his body 
and blood, even according to Protestant doctrine, or we must 
suppose the Church of England guilty of a most scandalous 
equivocation in so serious a matter, and say, she only makes 
use of the words verily and indeed to impose upon ignorant 
people, and make plain bread and wine go down the better. 

Now, to come to the principal point in question, I leave it 
to common sense to decide whether there must not be a 
change of the bread and wine, if the words of Christ's institu- 
tion import a real and substantial presence of his body and 
blood. For if this be granted, they either must be changed, 
or they must remain together with his body and blood, as 
Lutherans hold : but this is certainly inconsistent with the 
obvious meaning of the words of Christ. I prove it thus : If 
CJwist, taking the bread into his hands, had said, Here is my 
body, I own it would not be inconsistent with the obvious 
meaning of his words to say, that the bread and body of 
Christ are joined together in the sacrament. But Christ did 
not say, Here is my body, but, This is my body, which nothing 
but a substantial change of the bread into his body can make 
really and literally true; because the word this points pre- 
cisely at what the apostles saw ; which if it continued bread 



58 

after, as it was before the words of consecration, the proposi- 
tion was absolutely false, because the sense of it then was, 
that the bread he gave to his apostles was his body, which 
implies a contradiction, and is as impossible as that any two 
substances remaining different should be the same. 

But let us now see, my dear brother, what your Protestant 
doctrine is on this head. You say, 1st. That Christ blessed 
the bread and wine, therefore did not destroy it. What tri- 
fling stuff is this ! What if Christ blessed the water at Caha 
in Galilee, and with his blessing changed it into wine. Does 
it follow from thence that the water still remained 1 

2. You would have us believe there is nothing in the sac- 
rament but bread and wine. I answer, This may be Zwin- 
glian Protestancy , but it is not the Protestancy of the Church 
of England, whose Catechism (which surely is a Protestant 
one) teaches positively that the body and blood of Christ are 
verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the 
Lord's supper. 

3. That the apostle himself does no less than thrice call it 
bread and wine after the consecration. 1 Cor. 11, v. 26, 27, 
28. To which T answer, that nothing is more common, even 
in familiar discourse, than to call a thing by the name of that 
out of which it is made, or from which it is changed. Thus 
it was said to Adam, (Gen. c. 3, v. 19,) Dust thou art; be- 
cause, though then a living man, he had been made of dust. 
In like manner the serpent, that was made by a substantial 
change from Aaron's rod, is still called a rod in Scripture, 
because changed from it : They cast down every man his rod, 
and they became serpents ; but Aaron's Rod swallowed up 
their rods. Exod. c. 7, v. 12. Again, nothing is more famil- 
iar than to name things from the appearance which they have 
to our senses. The Scripture itself says, Behold, there stood 
A man over against him. Jos. 5, v. 13. Yet in the same 
place we are told he was not really a man, but the captain of 
the Lord's host, that is, an angel. So St. Mark assures us, 
that the women entering into the sepulchre saw a young 
man. c. 16, v. 5. But he had only the name because he 



59 

appeared so. For he was not really a young man, but an 
angel. Matt. 28, v. 5. Thus also it is the common way of 
speaking to say, I saw a dead man exposed, though it be not 
then a man, but a mere carcass. In like manner, therefore* 
the body of Christ in the sacrament is by a proper and fa- 
miliar figure called bread by St. Paul, because it is changed 
from bread, has to our senses the likeness of bread, and nour- 
ishes the soul, as bread nourishes the body. If you ask 
what this consecrated bread is, our Savior tells you, (John, 6, 
v. 51,) The bread that I will give is my flesh. St. Paul 
tells you (1 Cor. c. 10, v. 16) it is the communion of the 
body of Christ. Nay, we ourselves call it the holy bread 
of eternal life in the mass after consecration. Yet I hope 
nobody will infer from thence that we do not believe tran- 
substantiation. 

Objections answered. 

Your opinion of transubstantiation, say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, seems to be tolerably well founded ; but to us it 
appears to destroy the great evidence of the first witnesses of 
Christianity. That is, if it be not true bread and wine, but 
the body and blood of Christ, which we receive in the sacra- 
ment, it follows that our senses are deceived ; and by con- 
sequence the apostles could not be sure they saw Christ 
work any miracles, which takes away the great evidence of 
Christianity. 

Answer. This objection, so highly magnified by some of 
our adversaries, must either suppose that we must never trust 
our eyes or any of our senses, unless we may always trust 
them ; or that our senses must always be trusted, when they 
give us jointly the best information they are capable of. The 
first of these suppositions is contrary both to reason and reli- 
gion, nay, even to experience, and to our senses themselves. 
For all these correct the errors of sense, if I may be allowed 
that way of speaking. The sun appears to our eyes scarce 
bigger than a span, and the fixed stars a great deal less. 



60 

But reason tells us they may be greater than the earth. A 
straight stick, if you put the end of it under water, will ap- 
pear crooked. But take it out, and your eyes will discover 
their own mistake. The two disciples going to Emmaus had 
Jesus in their company ; they both heard him and saw him ; 
yet took him for another, because their eyes were holden, 
that they should not know him. Luke, 24, v. 16. At length 
even by their senses they found they had been misinformed ; 
for soon after their eyes were opened, and they knew him. 
v. 31. But because their sight had deceived them on this 
occasion, were they never to trust to it any more? Were 
they not to believe that they had seen any miracles of Christ ? 
St. Mary Magdalen was deceived in the same manner : 
she saw Jesus, yet knew not that it was he, and supposed him 
to be the gardener. John, 20, v. 14, 15. But was she not to 
believe her eyes when she fell at his feet? (Matt. 28, v. 9;) 
when she told the disciples, that she had seen the Lord 1 
(John, 20, v. 18 ;) when she saw him nailed to the cross, 
(Matt. 27, v. 55,) and laid in the tomb ? v. 61. 

The second supposition, to wit, that our senses must always 
be trusted, is equally false. For, first, the two disciples going 
to Emmaus had the joint information both of their eyes and 
ears. Yet I hope they might be sure and faithful witnesses 
of Christ's miracles. 

2dly. Josue's eyes deceived him when he said to the angel, 
Art thou for us, or for our adversaries ? Jos. 5, v. 13. And 
all his senses might then have been under the same mistake. 
But was he not to trust his eyes, when he saw the sun stand 
still, the walls of Jerico tumble down, the waters of Jordan 
rise up in heaps, and so many other miracles done both by 
Moses and himself? 

3dly. When St. Peter was rescued out of prison, he 
knew for certain that God had sent his angel, and had de- 
livered him out of the hands of Herod. Acts, 12, v. 11. 
Here, then, is a. fact, in which he both believed and disbelieved 
the information of his senses. Had he believed them as to 
the person of his guide, (whom he saw, heard, and felt, when 



61 

he struck him on the side,) he must have judged him to be a 
man, not an angel. In this, then, he found his senses were 
mistaken. Yet he still believed his eyes, and had nothing 
but his eyes to trust to that he saw two miracles wrought in 
his favor, viz., the falling of his chains, and the iron gate's 
opening of its own accord. 

4thly. If God had said to the holy women as they went 
to the sepulchre, You shall meet one there, toho, to all your 
senses, will appear to be a man, and yet is none ; or to the 
apostles before the last supper, You shall eat and drink 
that which icill seem to be bread and wine, but in reality is 
not so ; would it follow that if they had believed him they 
must have renounced the use of their senses forever ? To 
say that God is not to be believed, is blasphemy, and to say 
that if they believe him in this, they must renounce their 
senses in all other matters, is madness. 

It is therefore false, that, without believing our senses in 
every thing, when they give us the best informations they can, 
we must believe them in nothing. It is false to say, that, if 
we do not judge of bread and wine, in the sacrament, by the 
information of our senses, the apostles could not be sure they 
ever saw Christ work any miracles, or that the sensible 
grounds of Christianity are shaken. For God having given 
us senses to direct our judgment, we ought to rely on their 
information, unless either our senses themselves, or reason, or 
faith, correct their mistake. And if reason may ever be 
allowed to overrule their misinformation, we cannot surely 
refuse to pay the same deference to the revelation of God, 
when it tells us that such or such a thing is not what it ap- 
pears to be to our sejises. In fine, since we have so many 
instances of this in the Scripture, as it is ridiculous to say, 
we must believe our senses in nothing, so it is impious to say 
we must believe them in every thing. 

6. Whereas Christ says, (John, c. 6, v. 51,) " I am the 

living bread which came down from heaven ; if any man eat 

of this bread, he shall live forever." " No, no," say the 

Protestant and Presbyterian, " he shall not live forever, un- 

6 



62 

less he takes of the cup, which is unlawfully taken away 
from the laity by the Popish priest, as our ministers allege." 
Indeed, brother, if you accuse the priests of unlawfulness for 
administering this sacrament to the laity only under the 
form of bread, you may also presume to accuse Christ himself, 
for administering it under the same form to those two disci- 
ples that were going to Emmaus. Luke, c. 24, v. 30. And 
you may, by that same arrogancy, presume likewise to accuse 
those first believers, who are said to have " continued stead- 
fastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship in breaking of 
bread and prayers." Acts, c. 2, v. 42, 46. But if you do 
not presume to accuse either Christ or those first believers 
for administering the sacrament only under the form of bread, 
why do you presume to accuse those Popish priests, since 
they do nothing herein, but only that of which Christ and 
his disciples had left them an example ? You might know 
by what I have showed you here, (No. 1,) that he who re- 
ceives it under one kind, receives it as a complete and per- 
fect sacrament, viz., " a visible sign, signifying an invisible 
grace," &,c. And hence Christ says that " he who eats that 
heavenly bread shall never die, but shall live forever." John, 
c. 6, v. 51. What need you more than to never die, and to 
live forever 1 Surely this is as full an effect of this sacrament 
as is promised any where in Scripture to them that take it un- 
der both kinds ; and the reason of this is, that whatever is con- 
tained under both kinds, the very same is contained in one 
kind ; for Christ is there definitive, which property requires 
that he should be still whole and entire ; and hence it follows 
that wherever Christ's flesh is, his blood also must be in the 
very same place ; and consequently, when you receive his body, 
you receive likewise his blood, and when you drink his blood, 
you eat his flesh ; and it is therefore St. Paul says, " Whoso- 
ever shall eat this bread, or {your Bible has the icord " and," 
contrary to the Greek text) drink this chalice of our Lord un- 
worthily, he is guilty of the body and blood of our Lord." 
1 Cor. c. 11, v. 27. For he declares, by the word "or," that 
one is guilty of both the body and blood of Christ, if he un- 



63 

worthily receives him under one kind ; but this could not 
happen if both the body and blood of Christ had not been 
contained in each kind. 

7. As to what you allege, that all people are obliged to 
take the cup, because it is said, " Drink ye all of this," I 
answer, that Christ spoke then to the apostles, and to their 
successors, the priests, to whom also he said, " Do this." 
And as these words, viz., " Do this," are not to be so under- 
stood, that they oblige the laity to consecrate the bread and 
wine, so likewise these other words, " Drink ye all of this," 
are not to be so generally understood, that they oblige the 
laity to take the cup ; and what some of your sect infer from 
these words, viz., " The flesh profiteth nothing," (John, c. 6, 
v. 63,) is blasphemous ; for Christ himself says there, (v. 51,) 
that " his flesh is the life of the world." The sense therefore 
of these words is, that Christ's flesh profiteth nothing to them 
who would believe that it is the flesh of one, that is, only a 
man, not having the divine nature of God united to him ; 
and hence, Christ knowing that this was the opinion of Ju- 
das and some of the Jews, because they believed not that he 
was the true Son of God, he therefore expressed the former 
words, and, after them, the following : " The words that I 
speak unto you, they are spirit and life," (v. 63;) that is, they 
ought to raise you up in spirit to believe that this flesh, which 
I give you, is joined with the divine nature of God, who is 
able to give this same flesh to be eaten by men, that by really 
feeding upon it, they may be nourished to eternal life. You 
may further see the truth of this in the holy fathers' commen- 
taries upon the sixth chapter of St. John. Now you have seen, 
brother, by what I have shown you in this section, how your 
learned ministers have seemingly destroyed the natures of 
these two sacraments, which they pretend to have left you; 
for they deny, contrary to the express word of Christ, the 
real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's supper, and profess to give you nothing 
but mere bread and wine, having no more divinity in them, 
than a piece of clean paper has written characters; and 



64 

your Presbyterian ministers deny both the virtue and neces- 
sity of the sacrament of baptism, notwithstanding they find 
the word of God in opposition to them. 

Objections ansioered. 

We have paid the greatest attention, dear brother, to the 
arguments you have made in defence of your religion ; but 
how can you account for these three following texts, which 
plainly contradict your doctrine, and prove the necessity of 
communion in both kinds? " This is my blood of the New 
Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." 
Matt. 26, v. 28. " This cup is the New Testament in my 
blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22, v. 20. "The cup 
of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the 
blood of Christ ? " 1 Cor. 10, v. 16. These three texts, I 
say, are wholly wide from the purpose, and only prove (and 
indeed they prove it effectually) that Christ consecrated the 
cup into his blood as well as the bread into his body, which I 
wish you believed as heartily as I do. But then 1 must desire 
you to remember, that Christ neither consecrated the cup 
into dead and inanimate blood, nor the bread into a dead 
carcass. Whence I have concluded, that whoever receives 
his body receives likewise his sacred blood ; for a living body 
cannot be without blood ; nor can we receive one half of 
Christ without the other. 

The other two texts have some shadow of difficulty ; but it 
will soon vanish. St. Matthew (26, v. 27) says, " He took the 
cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all 
of it." And St. Mark (14, v. 23) says, " They all drank of it." 
Whence, I presume, you would have us conclude, that all are 
here commanded to drink of the cup. But the all mentioned 
by St. Mark explains the all that were commanded to drink, 
according to St. Matthew. And who were those all? They 
could be no others than the apostles, who were the only per- 
sons with our Savior at his last supper. For surely if the 
apostles were the all that drank, they were likewise the same 



65 

all that were bid to drink — a strange argument to prove 
that the laity are all bound to drink of the cup. 

But is it not remarkable that Christ should, in distributing 
the bread, say no more than " Take and eat ; " yet in giving 
the cup should say expressly, " Drink ye all of it," to prevent, 
as it were, the taking away of the cup ? This is Mr. Lesly's 
observation. I answer, that St. Luke has given a reason for 
it, which utterly spoils the force of this observation. For he 
tells us that Christ himself divided the bread, and gave to 
each apostle the morsel he was to eat. Luke 22, v. 19. So 
that all were not to eat of the same piece of consecrated 
bread, but all were to drink of the same consecrated cup ; 
which therefore (according to St. Luke's relation) he gave 
them, and bade them divide it among themselves, v. 17. And 
this explains our Savior's saying, " Drink ye all of it ; " which 
was only said to caution them, that they were all to have their 
share of the cup he gave them ; whereas the caution was un- 
necessary as to the consecrated bread, which he distributed 
with his own hands. 

The last text, on which you lay the greatest stress, is as 
follows : " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and 
drink his blood, ye have no life in you." John 6, v. 54. This, 
you say, implies a positive precept of communion in both 
kinds, as a means necessary to attain to life everlasting. I 
grant it implies a positive precept of receiving the body and 
blood of Christ, but not of communion in both kinds ; which 
I prove first from the practice of the primitive church,, who 
were surely as clear-sighted as the pretended reformers, yet 
never could discover a positive precept of communion in both 
kinds in that text ; for, had they seen it, they would not have 
acted contrary to it by administering the communion in one 
kind only, as they did on many occasions. 

But I prove it, 2dly, from no less than four texts in the 
same chapter of St. John, where Christ promises eternal life 
to eating alone; as, first, " This is the bread which came 
down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die." 
v. 59. 2dly. " If a man eateth of this bread, he shall live 
6* 



■ 66 

forever ; and the bread that I will give is my flesh." v. 51. 
3dly. " He that eateth me shall live by me." v. 57. And 
4thly. " He that eateth this bread shall live forever." v. 58. 
Since, therefore, life everlasting is here promised no less than 
four times to eating the bread, without any mention of the 
cup, the true meaning of the above-mentioned texts, wherein 
both eating and drinking are mentioned, can be no other than 
this, viz., " Except we become partakers both of the body and 
blood of Christ, for the nourishment of our souls, we shall 
have no life in us ; " which no Roman Catholic ever denied. 
But since it is impossible to receive the living body of Christ 
without receiving his blood by the very action of eating his 
body, it is an undeniable consequence, that communion in 
one kind is an entire fulfilling of the precept implied in the 
above-mentioned text, as it fully answers the end for which 
the sacrament was instituted ; to wit, the obtaining life ever- 
lasting, according to Christ's promise, so often repeated in the 
same chapter. 

Nay, nothing can be more rational than this interpretation 
of the fore-mentioned texts; because the only drift of cur 
Savior's discourse was to convince the disbelieving Caphar- 
naits that unless their souls were nourished with the real 
flesh and blood of the Son of man, they should not have life 
everlasting ; and that they, who were made partakers of his 
body and blood, should have life everlasting. So that pro- 
vided the real body and blood of Christ be but received, 
whether it be by the action of eating, or of drinking only, or 
by both together, it is manifest that all worthy communicants, 
as they receive whole Christ, who is the fountain of grace 
and eternal life, so they fully satisfy the end of Christ's insti- 
tution, and perform all that is obligatory in the precept of 
communion. 

This, I think, suffices to satisfy any man, who will be 
content with a reasonable satisfaction; and to convince him, 
at the same time, that your loud clamors against us on ac- 
count of communion in one kind, are wholly unjustifiable, 
and appear to be the fruits of a violent party spleen rather 



67 

than a sincere zeal for the truth. I shall, however, offer one 
consideration more, to make good the principal point I have 
maintained, to wit, that there is no positive command to 
oblige all to receive the sacrament in both kinds. For surely 
if there were any such command, I may confidently say it is 
wholly improbable the universal church, in any age whatsoever, 
could be so blind as not to see it; and if they saw it, I ask, 
what motive could her bishops and pastors have to combine 
together in resolution to commit a damnable sin, by forbid- 
ding what Christ has commanded, when there was neither 
honor, nor interest, nor pleasure, to induce them to it? And 
yet it is an. incontestable fact, that two general councils (and 
general councils have always been regarded as the represent- 
atives of the universal church) decreed that the sacrament 
should not be administered to the laity in both kinds. It is 
therefore plain that, when they made this law, they were con- 
vinced in their hearts of two things : first, that the people 
were not injured by receiving it in one kind ; and, secondly, 
that there was no command to oblige them so to receive it in 
both. And if neither they nor the great lights of the primi- 
tive church could ever discover any such command, it looks 
rather like a chimera than a probability, that a set of obscure 
factious persons, without mission or authority from any lawful 
superior, should be more intelligent and clear-sighted in 
divine matters than they, and see things wholly unseen before. 



SECTION IX. 

Of the Sacrament of Confirmation. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says, (Acts, c. 8, v. 14, &c.,) 
" And when the apostles who were in Jerusalem had heard 
that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto 
them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed 
for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, for he was 



68 

not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized 
in the name of our Lord Jesus : then they impose hands (be- 
hold the outward sign) upon them, and they received the 
Holy Ghost." {Behold the inward grace given in this sacra- 
ment of confirmation.) " No,, no," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, " that confirmation is no sacrament at all, but 
a kind of ceremony used by the apostles." Indeed, brother, 
it hath the definition of a sacrament, as you may see, sec. 8, 
No. 1. And if the imposition of hands after this manner 
had been only a ceremony, why did not Philip the deacon, 
who converted and baptized the Samaritans, use that cere- 
mony ? Where could there be any necessity for sending 
these two bishops, viz., Peter and John, to the Samaritans, if 
this had not been a venerable sacrament, which ordinarily 
ought to be conferred by a bishop 1 And though Protestants 
deny it to be a sacrament, yet I see that the Church of Eng- 
land reserves this confirmation to their pretended bishops, 
and would not suffer their common curates to confer it, as 
Sir Richard Baker relates, p. 421. And the same is evident 
from their Common Prayer Book, wherein their bishops have 
a prescribed form of ceremonies and prayers, which they 
use when they confer their confirmation. As for the Pres- 
byterians, I cannot but admire how impudently they al- 
lege, in their Catechism, against Popery, printed at Glasgow, 
the year 1683, p. 68, that " the Papists have no ground in 
the word of God for confirmation." Whereas the aforesaid 
text doth clearly enforce the truth of our doctrine ; and it is 
further proved by that other text of the Acts, which declares 
that St. Paul had baptized, and afterwards confirmed, about 
twelve of St. John's disciples. " Hearing these things," saith 
the Scripture, " they were baptized in the name of our 
Lord Jesus ; and when Paul had imposed hands upon them, 
the Holy Ghost came upon them." Acts, c. 19, v. 5, 6. And 
to prevent the subterfuge of those who would offer to misin- 
terpret the aforesaid text, saying that they only prove that the 
gift of the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition of hands, 
in order to speak several languages, I will therefore produce 



GO 

the following words of St. Augustin, which sufficiently con- 
fute that pretence of denying the truth, "Is there any man," 
saith he, " of so perverse a heart as to deny these children on 
whom we impose hands to have received the Holy Ghost, be- 
cause they speak not with tongues 1 " St. Augustin, Trac. 6, 
in Epist. in Joan. And he further observes, " The sacra- 
ment of chrism, like visible seals, is sacred and holy, even as 
baptism itself." Aug. Lib. 2, cont. lit. Pet. c. 104. And 
St. Jerom gives also a further proof of this sacrament in the 
following words : " Dost thou not know also that this is the 
custom of the churches, that hands should be imposed on such 
as have been baptized, and so the Holy Ghost be invoked? 
Dost thou inquire where it is written ? In the Acts of the 
Apostles. And though there were no authority of Scripture 
for it, yet the consent of the whole world (note these words) 
in this respect would be equal to a precept ; for many other 
things also which are observed in the church by tradition, 
claim the authority of a written law." Epist. cont. Lucifer. 



SECTION X. 
Of the Sacrament of Penance. 

1. Whereas Christ says, (John, c. 20, v. 22, 23,) "Re- 
ceive ye the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they are 
remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are 
retained." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
" that power of loosing and binding sins was only given to 
those apostles who were present ; and so Christ did not oblige 
himself to ratify the sentences and judgments of pastors, 
which are very often rash, and contrary to justice and chari- 
ty, as our Catechism against Popery affirms, p. 66." Pray, 
brother, show me, if you can, by what text of Scripture your 
learned ministers prove that St. Thomas, one of the twelve, 
who was not present when Christ spoke these words, aa 



70 

appears by the aforesaid chapter, (v. 24,) had not that power 
of forgiving and retaining sins ? Or how can they prove 
that St, Paul (who had not been converted to the Christian 
religion until two years after Christ had conferred that 
power upon his apostles) had not the same power 1 Do they 
foolishly believe that this power was then granted to those 
that were then present, merely for their own sake, in order 
to increase their authority, and not for the sake of those 
members of the Church of Christ, of which the far greater 
number lived after the time of the apostles? Or do they 
imagine that it is a dishonor to God that men should have 
the power to forgive sins 1 And if this be their pretence, 
let them take notice of the following words of St. Ambrose, 
writing against the Novatian heretics. " Why do you bap- 
tize," saith he, " if sins cannot be remitted by a man ; for in 
baptism there is the remission of all sins, nor is it material 
whether priests challenge to themselves this power by penance 
or by baptism." Ambrose, Lib. de Penit. c. 7. Therefore I 
would advise you to learn from your ministers, why should it 
be a greater dishonor to God, that men should now forgive 
sins by penance, than that they should forgive them by 
baptism, seeing it is the Holy Ghost that forgives them in 
both cases, by the ministry of a man 1 for when the priest 
baptizes a child, he says, " I do baptize thee," that is, I wash 
away thy sins, " by the power given to me, in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And 
when he absolves the penitent, he likewise says, li I absolve 
thee from thy sins," that is, I wash them away, " by the 
authority of Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Whereby you may clearly 
understand that you have no sufficient reason to deny that 
sins should be forgiven by the ministry of a man in the sacra- 
ment of penance, whereas you admit that sins are forgiven 
by the ministry of a man in the sacrament of baptism ; and 
if you believe the word of God, it tells you the one as ex- 
pressly as it tells you the other, And St. Chrysostom speaks 
thus on the subject ; " Christ has given that power to priests, 



71 

which would not be given either to angels or to archangels. 
Earthly princes have also power to bind only the bodies, but 
the bond of priests toucheth the very soul itself, and reacheth 
to heiven. What power, I beseech you, can be greater than 
this ? " Chrys. lib. 3, de Sacerd. 

2. Whereas the Scripture says, (James, c. 5, v. 16,) " Con- 
fess therefore your sins to one another, and pray for one 
another, that ye may be saved." " No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " we will not confess our sins to any man 
who knows them not before, and we are taught to do so by 
our learned Mr. Whitaker, who says, (Cont. Rat. Camp. rat. 
5, p. 78,) that " not only Cyprian, but also almost all the 
fathers of that time, were infected with the error of confessing 
private sins to priests." Truly, brother, this error, of which 
Whitaker presumes to accuse the holy fathers, shows that 
you contradict your own doctrine elsewhere; for almost all 
Protestants acknowledge that the Roman Church was pure 
and without blemish in St. Cyprian's time, that is, about the 
year of Christ 250 ; and yet, on the other hand, you reject 
now the doctrine of confessing men's private sins to priests, 
which was then generally practised by all the believers of that 
pure and true Church, as your own authors are forced to ac- 
knowledge. But what need I reflect upon this contradiction, 
whereas it is common to all our dissenting brethren to deny, 
at one time, what they admit at another, not knowing what 
they do? The word of God expressly tells them how they 
ought to conduct themselves in this particular ; yet they will 
not believe it, though they say that it is their only rule of 
faith. But omitting such censures, I would be glad to know 
from your ministers, how could that power, which Christ gave 
to absolve people from sin, be exercised, unless sinners, who, 
you see, are commanded by the Scripture to confess their sins, 
were obliged to confess their sins to those who have this 
power ? Where do they read in Scripture that public sinners 
only are comprehended under that precept which commands 
people to confess their sins? And where do they read in 
Scripture that those who came to St. Paul, " confessing and 



72 

declaring their sins," (Acts, c. 19, v. 18,) only confessed 
their public sins? Let them show me either of these three 
things, by some plain text of Scripture, and then I will be 
more ready to embrace your doctrine concerning this point. 
In the mean time, I think myself obliged in conscience to 
believe these former texts, and also this other of St. John, 
which says, " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to 
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous- 
ness." 1 John, c. 1, v. 9. 



SECTION XT. 
Of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 

1. Whereas the Scripture says, (James, c. 5, v. 14, 15,) 
" Is any man sick among you, let him bring in the priests," 
(your ministers have translated the word " elders," improperly, 
from the Greek word " Presbuterous," of the church,) " and 
let them pray over them, anointing them with oil, in the name 
of the Lord, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." 
" No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " we will 
not make use of that unprofitable Popish ceremony ; for our 
Catechism against Popery (p. 71) says, that we ought not to 
practise it in the church, because it doth not now heal cor- 
poral diseases." Pray, brother, oblige your ministers to show 
you this doctrine by some text of clear Scripture, if there be 
any such text to be had in their Bible, or else urge them to 
confess that they are quite unable to produce such a text. 
Oblige them also to produce you another plain text of Scrip- 
ture, which may prove that this extreme unction was pur- 
posely instituted in order to cure corporal diseases. Indeed, 
we acknowledge that God gives it this virtue, when he thinks 
it expedient, and we see, by daily examples, that innumerable 
infirm people are restored to their former health immediately 
after receiving this sacrament ; yet we say that this is not 



73 

the principal end for which it was instituted by God, but 
rather for the remission of sins and augmentation of grace, 
which you may perceive is true, by these express words of 
Scripture, saying, " And if he be in sins, they shall be for- 
given him." v. 15. Hence you may know how greatly you 
are injured by those learned ministers, who are the occasion 
of depriving you of this great benefit, which you might obtain 
by receiving this sacrament before you depart out of this 
world. 



SECTION XII. 

The Sacrament of Holy Order. 

1. Whereas St. Paul says to the bishop Timothy, (1 Tim. 
c. 4, v. 14,) " Neglect not the grace that is in thee, (take 
notice of these words,) which was given thee by prophecy, with 
the imposition of the hands of the priesthood." Behold the 
outward sign, and consequently the sacrament of holy orders 
contained in Scripture. " No, no," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, " we will not acknowledge that to be a sacra- 
ment at all, for we are taught by our Mr. Whitaker, (Cont. 
Durccum, lib. 9, p. 821,) and Mr. Fulke, (in his Retentive, 
p. 67,) that ' we should with all our hearts abhor, detest, and 
spit at your stinking, greasy, antichristian order.' " Pray, 
brother, observe how irreverently your great divines exclaim 
here against that holy sacrament, which they find to be ex- 
pressly contained in the word of God, and thus not only in 
the aforesaid, but also in the following text, which says, " I 
admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in 
thee {here you have the inward grace which was then given) 
by the imposition of thy hands." 2 Tim. c. 1, v. 6. And 
these other words show you the outward sign by which that 
grace was given, by the ministry of a bishop. But, notwith- 
standing you see this by clear Scripture, yet your Presbyterian 
ministers abhor to hear and practise it, and I believe that their 
7 



74 

chief reason for doing so is, that at the beginning of their pre- 
tended reformation, they could not show that they themselves 
were either lawfully ordained or lawfully sent by God to teach 
their new notions ; and hence they made the simple people, 
who then embraced their doctrine, believe that they had an 
extraordinary commission from God to preach and teach these 
notions, and so by that means they deceived the poor ignorant 
people, who neither then nor now make use of the sound 
doctrine of St. Paul, saying, " Though an angel from heaven 
preach another gospel unto you than that which we have 
preached, let him be accursed." Gal. c. 1, v. 8. But, notwith- 
standing this pretence of extraordinary calling, yet I see that 
the Church of England endeavored, in Queen Elizabeth's 
time, to force the Catholic bishops then in prison to impose 
their hands on the queen's new pretended bishops, which they 
refused, and preferred rather to die in prison than ordain them, 
as Sanders (De Schismate Anglorum) and Chamney {De Vo- 
catione Ministrorum) assert. Hence it appears how disorderly 
your Protestant and Presbyterian ministers have proceeded in 
the beginning of their deformation, and they have caused 
thereby their own churches to live in the same confusion ever 
since, pretending, forsooth, to more authority than St. Paul 
himself. For though this great apostle was called in an 
extraordinary manner by a voice from heaven, and received 
the true spirit of God, yet we see by Scripture, that he was 
ordained by the imposition of hands, as appears from the 
Acts of the Apostles, c. 13, v. 3. 

2. Whereas St. Paul says to the bishop Titus, (Tit. c. 1, 
v. 5,) " For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst 
set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain priests in 
every city, as I also appointed thee." " No, no, Paul," say 
the Protestant and Presbyterian, " it was not for that end you 
left him in Crete, that he might ordain priests in every city." 
Otherwise our learned ministers would not cause several acts 
of parliament to be made against all sorts of priests, who are 
therefore now liable to the penal laws, if they be discovered 
or taken in any city, town, or village, of all these king- 



/ -) 

doms, in which our Protestant or Presbyterian religion 
flourishes. 

3. Whereas St. Paul says, (1 Tim. c. 3, v. 1,) "This is a 
faithful saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he de- 
sireth a good work." " No, no," says the Presbyterian, " that 
is rather a false saying, because he who desires the office of 
a bishop, desires only an antichristian work ; and therefore it 
is, our Presbyterian government hath often rooted all kinds 
of bishops, and their devilish ways of governing, out of the 
kingdom of Scotland ; and it hath now of late, since King 
James was banished, displaced all those Episcopal ministers 
who would not by oath renounce Episcopacy." 



SECTION XIII. 
The Sacrament of Matrimony. 

1. Whereas Christ says, (Mark, c. 10, v. 11, 12,) "Who- 
soever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth 
adultery against her ; and if the wife shall put away her hus- 
band, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." 
" No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " neither of 
them committeth adultery in that case ; for our confession 
of faith says, (c. 24,) that in case of adultery after marriage, 
it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and 
after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party 
had been dead." Truly, brother, your learned ministers are 
not taught to believe or practise this doctrine by the word of 
God, which only tells them that adultery is a just cause of 
separation of bed, as appears by that of St. Matthew, c. 5, 
v. 32, and c. 19, v. 9. But surely this is not the same as to 
say that adultery dissolves the bond of marriage; for Christ 
says, in these very texts of Matthew, that " whosoever mar- 
rieth her that is put away, that he committeth adultery." But 
this could not be true, if her first marriage had been dis- 



76 

solved by committing adultery, as St. Augustin clearly 
showeth, Lib. 1, de Adulterinis Conjugis, c. 22, and St. 
Jerom, in his commentary on the aforesaid texts. And you 
may further discover the truth of this by the following texts, 
which say, " Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth 
another, committeth adultery ; and whosoever marrieth her 
that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery." 
Luke, c. 16, v. 18. " The woman that hath a husband is 
bound by the laws to her husband so long as he liveth ; but if 
the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her hus- 
band ; so then, if while her husband liveth, she be married 
to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." Rom. c. 7, 
v. 2, 3. " The wife is bound by the law, as long as her hus- 
band liveth ; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to 
be married to whom she will." 1 Cor. c. 7, v. 39. But 
these other words of St. Paul are decisive, saying, (in this 
chapter, v. 10, 11,) " Let not the wife depart from her hus- 
band ; but if she depart let her remain unmarried, or be 
reconciled to her husband." Now, brother, since I have 
shown you the truth of the Catholic doctrine, concerning this 
point, by all these former texts of Scripture, I hope you will 
not blame me for requiring of you to show me one plain text 
of Scripture which affirms that it is lawful either for the hus- 
band or wife to marry another in case of adultery. 



SECTION XIV. 
Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. 

1. Whereas St. Paul says, (Heb. c. 5, v. 1,) " Every high 
priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things 
partaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifice 
for sins." "No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyte- 
rian, " there are no such priests now ordained whose office 
might be to offer sacrifice for men's sins ; therefore we will 



77 

have no Popish mass brought in, under that false pretence of 
offering sacrifice for people's sins, because Christ offered 
himself once as a sacrifice for us all, which is enough for- 
ever." Pray, brother, how can either you or your ministers 
pretend to know this matter better than St. Paul knew it? 
or St. Peter, who was present at our Savior's bloody sacri- 
fice, and after his resurrection had often conversed with him, 
during the forty days before his ascension to heaven 1 and yet 
this apostle speaks the following words concerning the priests 
and sacrifice : " Ye also, as living stones, are built up a 
spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacri- 
fices, acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. c. 2, v. 5. 
You see by these words of clear Scripture, that this holy 
sacrifice of the mass, which is offered to God by the priests, 
is acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Why, then, do you 
deny the lawfulness thereof, since the word of God contradicts 
you herein 1 Nay, St. Paul further speaks thus on the sub- 
ject : " We have," saith he, " an altar whereof they have no 
power to eat, who serve the tabernacle." Heb. c. 13, v. 10. 
By these words he tells the Jews that they cannot partake 
of the sacrifice of our altar, if they adhere to their old sacri- 
fices ; and if you remark well his discourse, (1 Cor. c. 10,) 
you will see how plainly he concludes against the Jews 
and heathens, that all those who wish to be made partakers 
of their sacrifices, cannot be made partakers of the Chris- 
tian sacrifice of the body and blood of our Savior. There- 
fore he bids them (v. 14) fly from serving idols, by their 
sacrificing to them, or eating of that which hath been 
offered to them. If they would do this, he tells them of a 
far better sacrifice, of which they might be made partakers 
at our altars. " For," saith he, (v. 16,) " the chalice of bene- 
diction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 
of Christ 1 and the bread which we break, is it not the par- 
taking of the body of the Lord 1 " And having thus taught 
them that, by the virtue of the priest's benediction, or con- 
secration, the true body and blood of Christ are made com- 
municable upon our altars, under the appearance of bread 
7* 



78 

and wine, he then tells them that they could not be made 
partakers of this sacrifice, if they continued still to partake 
either of the Jewish or heathenish sacrifices, of which they 
made themselves partakers, by eating of that which was sac- 
rificed to them. " For, behold, Israel," saith he, (v. 18,) " they 
that eat of the sacrifices are not partakers of the altar;" 
for by doing so, they communicated with those who offered 
these sacrifices. And having spoken thus of the Jewish, he 
afterwards speaks of the Gentile sacrifices. " But the things," 
saith he, (v. 20,) " which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice 
to devils, and not to God ; and I would not that you should be 
made partakers with devils." " For," saith he, (v. 21,) " ye 
cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table cf 
devils." You see, brother, by this discourse of St. Paul, 
how he disapproves the sacrifice of the Jews and Gentiles, 
and tells them what great difference there is between their 
sacrifices and that noble sacrifice which the Christians then 
offered to God. " For," saith he, (v. 17,) " we are all par- 
takers of that one bread, which is the bread of life, that came 
down from heaven," as you have seen, sec. 8, No. 6. 

2. Now, as to what you allege in the beginning of the 
last number, " that it is enough that Christ was once offered 
as a sacrifice for our sins," I answer, we do acknowledge 
that Christ has so offered himself for the salvation of man- 
kind, and that therefore we do not pretend by the sacrifice 
of the mass to make a new propitiation to appease God, as if 
he had not been fully satisfied by the sacrifice of the cross. 
Neither do we by this holy sacrifice pretend to make any ad- 
dition to the price of our salvation, as if it had been imper- 
fect : for this is not our doctrine, but some of your minister's 
calumnies against us, and they make the poor ignorant people 
really believe that it is our doctrine, which you may plainly see 
is false, by the following words of the council of Trent : " The 
sacrifice of the mass is instituted only to represent the bloody 
sacrifice which was once accomplished upon the cross, to 
perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the world, and to 
apply to us the saving virtue of it, for the remission of those 



70 

sins which we commit every day." Sess. 22, c. 1. You 
may perceive by these words that the Roman Catholics do 
acknowledge that all the merits of our redemption depend 
upon the death and passion of Christ. When the priest 
therefore says to God, in the celebration of this divine mys- 
tery, " We offer unto thee this Holy Host," they pretend not 
by this oblation to make or present to God a new payment 
of the price of our salvation, but to offer up to him, in our 
behalf, the merits of our blessed Jesus Christ, there present, 
and the infinite price which he once paid for us ; and Christ 
being so present upon the altar, under the figure of death, we 
believe that then he intercedes for us, and represents con- 
tinually to his Father that death and passion which he has 
suffered for his church ; and it is in this sense we say that 
Jesus Christ offers up himself to his Father for us, in the 
blessed eucharist ; and it is after this same manner we con- 
ceive that this oblation renders God more propitious to us ; 
and therefore we call it a propitiatory sacrifice, because that 
which is offered for us, and for the remission of our sins, is a 
propitiatory offering, which applies plentifully the satisfaction 
of Christ's passion to us, not derogating from his bloody 
sacrifice, but delivering the fruits of it to us, as I observed 
before, sect. 6, No. 2. 

Whereas the prophet foretold the sacrifice which would 
be offered in the law of grace, saying, (Malac. c. 1, v. 11,) 
" From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of 
the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and 
even in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and 
a pure offering." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presby- 
terian, "that cannot be true; for we will not suffer that 
either incense or sacrifice shall be offered to yourself, or to 
your name, for that would be mere idolatry, of which all the 
Papists are damnably guilty, by adoring the eucharist and 
giving incense thereto, in their unlawful sacrifice of the 
mass." Truly, brother, though you believe firmly this doc- 
trine to be true, yet your learned ministers were never able 
to produce so much as one clear text of Scripture whereby 



80 

its truth could be proved. As for the holy fathers' authori- 
ties, they need not pretend to produce them, because they 
are decidedly against them in this point, as you may see in 
the answer to Mr. Jenning's Challenge. 

For a further proof of it, these words of the Psalmist, 
" Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchis- 
edech," (Psalm 110, v. 4,) are urged by St. Cyprian in the 
third age, St. Jerom, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, and St. 
Augustin, in the fourth, and St. Isidore, St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria, and Theodoret, in the fifth. For, as they argue, priests 
of the order of Aaron sacrificed beasts; but Melchisedech's 
sacrifice was bread and wine, (Gen. 14, v. 18,) a figure of the 
holy eucharist, by the daily offering whereof, and the fruits of 
his passion, Christ is a. priest forever. 

St. Cyprian calls the holy eucharist a " true and full sacri- 
fice," (Epist. 63;) St. Augustin, a " true and sovereign sacri- 
fice," (1. 10, de Civ. Dei, c. 20;) Eusebius, "an expiation for 
all the world," (1. 1, Dem. Ev. c. 10;) St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 
a " spiritual sacrifice, an unbloody worship, a propitiatory 
victim," (Cat. Myst. 5.) 

But there needs no other proof than what the Church of 
England herself teaches. For if the body and blood of Christ 
be verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful, and 
consecrated by the priest, it must of necessity follow that the 
priest offers them up verily and indeed upon the altar, and 
that they are an oblation of mercy. For how can Jesus 
Christ be unacceptable to his Father ? Or how can the fruits 
of his passion be applied more effectually than by his own 
dear self? 

Nor is the very name of mass an invention of latter ages. 
For thus the holy sacrifice of the altar was called above thir- 
teen hundred years ago. Witness first, St. Ambrose, who 
writes thus : " I continued the office, I began to say mass/' 
&,c. 1. 2, Epist. 14. And secondly, St. Leo, whose words are 
remarkable : " When the multitude (says he) is so great that 
the church cannot hold them all, let there be no difficulty 
made to offer the sacrifice oftener than once. For some part 



Si 

of the people must of necessity be deprived* of their devotions, 
if, following the custom of saying mass but once, none can 
offer up the sacrifice but they who come early in the morn- 
ing." St. Leo, Epist. 11, (olim 81,) ad Dioscorum. 

Here we have the sacrifice of the eucharist plainly spoken 
of, and called by the very name of mass, first by St. Ambrose, 
a father of the fourth age, and secondly by St. Leo, who lived 
in the fifth ; and I never heard they were the first who gave it 
that name. But let that be as it will, can our adversaries re- 
flect, without some uneasiness of thought, that it is but about 
a hundred and fifty years ago, when, by the sole authority of 
a secular tribunal, it was made high treason in Ireland for 
Christians to perform that very devotion, which was the most 
solemn worship of God in those ages, (when the Church's faith 
was uncorrupted, according to your own concession,) and 
which they had received from the apostles themselves. 

I add, moreover, that the Church of England is one of the 
first churches since the creation, that pretended to true priests 
and altars without any external sacrifice, this being in reality 
nothing less than a solecism in religion ; because a priest is 
properly one whose office is to offer sacrifice, and the altar is 
the place on which it is offered. 

Objections answered. 

Let us now see what you have to say against it. You say 
it is a vain and idolatrous thing. Why? Because by Christ's 
sacrifice God is sufficiently satisfied, and the repenting sinner 
fully secured ; for which see the following text : " This 
man, after he had offered one sacrifice for us forever, sat 
down at the right hand of God." Heb. c. 10, v. 12. I answer 
that, if this argument proves any thing, it proves likewise that 
both Christ's mediation for us in heaven, and the sacraments 
he has provided for us on earth, are also useless ; because 
God is sufficiently satisfied, and our ransom is fully paid by 
Christ's sacrifice offered on the cross. Nay, prayer, alms, 
fasting, self-denials, keeping the commandments, and repent- 



82 

ance itself, may all be thrown into the list of vain and idle 
things. But if all these be both profitable and necessary, be- 
cause they are ordained by God as means to apply to us the 
fruits of that bloody sacrifice, by which alone we are redeemed 
and the divine justice is fully satisfied, then surely Christ's 
offering himself daily on the altar for the self-same end, can- 
not, without blasphemy, be called vain or idolatrous. Indeed, 
we must live in a very Christian age wherein worshipping of 
Christ is called idolatry. 

It is true he offered himself but once a bloody sacrifice for 
us, since he can but once pay the ransom which God demand- 
ed : and it is of this sacrifice of redemption St. Paul speaks 
in the whole chapter quoted by you. Because he is our 
" High Priest forever according to the order of Melchise- 
dech," he offers himself daily for us in an unbloody manner ; 
not to redeem us again, but to apply by this, as by other means 
appointed by him, the price of our redemption. 

But you say, if " Christ sits forever at the right hand of 
God," how can he be truly present upon our altars ? I answer, 
in the very same manner as his body and blood are verily and 
indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper. 
But let St. Chrysostom teach you your lesson. " We always 
offer (says he) the same Christ. Therefore the sacrifice is 
the same. Are there many Christs because he is offered in 
many places? No. Christ is every where the same. He 
is entire here, and entire there, and has but one body. As 
therefore his body is the same, though offered up in different 
places, so the sacrifice is the same. He is our High Priest, 
who offered that victim which cleanses us. We now offer 
the same, which was offered then, and which cannot be con- 
sumed." Horn. 17, in Epist. ad Heb. 

But how do you pretend to understand that the same body 
can be in different places at once ? and if not, your religion 
must be a very blind one, I answer, first, when you have ex- 
plained the six following questions, you shall have full satis- 
faction. The first query is, How two bodies could be at once 
in the very same place by penetration, when Christ came to 



83 

his disciples, the doors being shut. John, 20, v. 19. The 
second is, How his body and blood can be present verily and 
indeed to one thousand faithful Christians receiving them at 
the same time in different places. The third is, How the same 
person can be both God and man. The fourth is, How there 
can be three divine persons, and only one God. The fifth is, 
How God could make all times and places, before there was 
either time or place to make them in. The sixth is, Whether 
a man's soul be at the same time in distant parts and distant 
places, as in the right hand and in the left, and whether the 
soul meets itself, and is separated from itself, when a man joins 
and parts his hands, &c. Again, whether part of the soul be 
not bit off and eaten, if a furious dog should snap a man's 
hand off and eat it 1 When, I say, you have given a clear and 
satisfactory answer to these few questions, there will be no dif- 
ficulty in answering both the questions now proposed, and 
some other very curious ones proposed by you. 

I answer, 2dly, if it be blindness to believe what we do 
not fully understand, we must necessarily renounce the best 
part of the Creed. But there is a large difference between 
understanding the mysteries we believe, and knowing the 
reasons why we believe them. To believe without reason is 
blindness ; but to believe things that are above our under- 
standing, is the very nature and essence of Christian faith. 



SECTION XV. 

Of the Ceremonies of the Church. 

1. Whereas St. Paul says, (1 Cor. c. 14, v. 40,) " Let 
all things be done decently and according to order." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " but let all things 
be done undecently, without order and Popish ceremonies, 
lest we should be guilty of superstition, as these people are, 
for using such ceremonies which are not prescribed in the 



84 

word of God. And hence our Mr. Calfehill affirms, (cited 
by Mr. Fulke, in his Rejoinder to Martial's Reply, pp. 131 
and 132,) that the very fathers deviated all from the simpli- 
city of the gospel, in using such ceremonies." Pray, brother, 
let me know, if you can, where do you read in Scripture 
that we ought not to use ceremonies? Do you not know 
that Christ himself had used some ceremonies in curing the 
deaf? Mark, c. 7, v. 32, &c. He first took him aside from 
the multitude ; secondly, he put his finger into his ears ; 
thirdly, spitting, he touched his tongue; fourthly, he looked 
up to heaven ; fifthly, he groaned ; sixthly, he used a word 
deserving special interpretation, saying, " Eppheta" that is, 
Be opened. Did he not also use ceremonies, by breathing 
upon the apostles? John, c. 20, v. 22. And in pardoning 
the adulteress, he twice bowed himself, and wrote something 
on the earth, John, c. 8, v. 6. And, in curing the blind 
man, " he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, 
and then spread the clay upon his eyes, and said unto him, 
Go wash in the pool of Siloe." John, c. 9, v. 6, 7. How do 
you know that Christ did not use purposely these ceremonies, 
that thereby he might leave his Church an example of using 
some other ceremonies in such mysterious actions, as are 
ordained to cure our spiritual deafness, spiritual dumbness, 
and spiritual blindness ? Truly, brother, I know no reason 
nor Scripture which could prohibit the Church of Christ to 
institute some ceremonies, both in imitation of these ceremo- 
nies used by Christ, and also that she might do all things de- 
cently and according to order, as St. Paul commanded us ; for 
by decency the people are stirred up to a higher degree of rev- 
erence and veneration, at the administration and receiving of 
the holy sacraments ; and if Jacob, a private man, used a new 
ceremony, by erecting a stone, and by pourng oil on it, and 
giving it the name or title of Bethel, (Gen. c. 28, v. 18,) 
which God himself had approved, (Gen. c. 31, v. 13,) and 
if the synagogue of the Jews had lawfully instituted a new 
feast by the advice of a private man, Mordecai, (Esther, c. 9, 
v. 20, &,c.,) I know no reason why the Church could not as 



8.3 

lawfully institute solemn feasts, and also some decent cere- 
monies, which might communicate a greater degree of respect 
and solemnity at the administration of the sacraments, as 
leaves are ornaments to trees ; for I know that Christ has not 
prescribed the particular form by which these sacraments 
should be administered, when he first instituted them, but 
left their institution to the wisdom of the apostles and the 
Church, to whom he said, " He that heareth you heareth me. 
and he that despiseth you despiseth me." Luke, c. 10, v. If. 
But since you, brother John, presume to censure the precepts 
of the Church, and profess that you will believe nothing but 
that only which the word of God prescribes in the Bible, I there- 
fore request you to show me by Scripture, that your own Epis- 
copal ministers ought to make use of their white surplices ; that 
you ought to have godfathers and godmothers at the administra- 
tion of the sacrament of baptism ; that you ought to receive 
the communion fasting ; and that you ought to kneel before 
your bishop when he confirms you. Truly, brother, you act 
very unfair with us in this matter, for you employ what cere- 
monies you please, without having any Scripture authority ; 
and you accuse us of superstition, for using other decent 
ceremonies, (which are nowhere prohibited by Scripture,) 
because we have not Scripture for them particularly, but the 
institution of that Church which the Scripture commands us 
to hear and obey. Matt. c. 18, v. 17. Heb. c. 13, v. 17. 



SECTION XVI. 

Of the Single Life of Priests, and such as have vowed 
Perpetual Chastity. 

1. Whereas St. Paul says, (1 Cor. c. 7, v. 1,) that " it is 

good for a man not to touch a woman." " No, no, Paul," says 

Martin Luther, ( Tom. 5, Witt ember. Ser. de Matrim. fol. 

119,) " it is not good for a man not to touch a woman; for 

8 



86 

as it is not in my power not to be a man, so it is not in my 
choice to be without a woman ; it is not in our power that it 
should be repressed or omitted, but it is as necessary as to 
eat, drink, purge, clean the nose, &c." I beseech you, brother, 
to consider what a great door to libertinism this doctrine of 
your first reformer opens to young men and women, to the 
husband and wife, when either of them is absent or infirm ; 
for they are all taught, by this doctrine of Luther, not to strive 
against that which he tells them is impossible to be observed ; 
and your own authors cannot but believe him, because, in 
their writings, they style him thus : " Holy Luther, a man 
sent of God to enlighten the world, the conductor of Eliseus, 
and the chariot of Israel, to be reverenced next after Christ 
and Paul ; greater than whom lived none since the apostles' 
time, the angel, the last trumpet of God, whose calling was 
immediate and extraordinary," &c. 

2. Whereas St. Paul says, (1 Cor. c. 7, v. 7, 8,) "I would 
that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his 
proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after 
that. I say, therefore, to the unmarried, and widows, it is 
good for them if they so continue, even as I." " No, no," say 
the Protestant and Presbyterian, " indeed, Paul, it is far better 
for them not to continue so, but to marry, seeing this is the 
practice of our reformation, of which our apostle, Luther, has 
left us an example. Truly, brother, I acknowledge that this 
man has left you such an example, for though he was an 
Augustinian friar, and vowed perpetual chastity, yet he cast 
off his religious habit, in the year 1524, and unlawfully mar- 
ried the nun, Catharine Bore, who also had before vowed 
perpetual chastity ; and though your Mr. Parkins, in his Re- 
formed Catalogue, p. 161, seemingly excuses this unlawful 
copulation, saying, " The vow of continence is not in the 
power of him that voweth," yet I know not how either you 
or any other can justify that action of your first apostle, Luther, 
who was bound to fulfil his vow of chastity ; for the word of 
God requires from all people to perform what they lawfully 
vow, as you may see by the following text of Scripture : 



87 

" When thou hast made a vow to the Lord thy God, thou shalt 
not delay to pay it, because the Lord thy God will require it : 
if thou wilt not promise, thou shalt be without sin, but that 
which is once gone out of thy lips, thou shalt observe, and 
thou shalt do as thou hast promised to the Lord thy God, and 
hast spoken with thy own will and thy own mouth." Deut. 
c. 23, v. 21, &c. "Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay 
thy vows unto the Most High." Psalm 50, v. 14. " Vow, and 
pay unto the Lord your God." Psalm 76, v. 11. "They 
shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it." Isa. c. 19, 
v. 21. "Pay that which thou hast vowed." Eccles. c. 5, v. 4. 
But it seems that Luther thought it a safer way not to pay 
that which he had vowed of his own accord. As for what 
Mr. Parkins alleges, that it is needless for people to vow con- 
tinence, because " the performance thereof is not in their 
own power," I answer, that by this doctrine he may also 
presume to hinder you from renouncing the devil and all his 
works, at your baptism ; because the performance thereof 
is not in your own power, unless you be assisted with the 
grace of God. But you, who deny that even this grace is 
capable of making you keep God's commandments, may also, 
by the very same rule, believe that even the grace of God is 
not able to make you lead a chaste life, and so your bachelors 
and young ministers, who are not married, must confess 

themselves to be all . 

3. Whereas St. Paul says, (1 Cor. c. 7, v. 25, 38,) " Now, 
concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, 
bat I give my counsel, (or judgment, according to your Bible.) 
He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well ; and he that 
giveth her not doth better." " No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " for he who giveth his virgin in marriage 
doth far better than he who gives not his virgin in marriage ; 
and hence our Luther says ( Tom. 5, Wittemb. in Assert, art. 
ad cap. 7, 1 Cor.) that ' matrimony is much more excellent 
than virginity, and that Christ and his apostles dissuaded 
Christians from virginity.' " You may find this doctrine of 
Luther acknowledged and seemingly defended by your own 



88 

Whitaker, Cont. Camp. rat. 8, p. 151. But I see that St. 
Paul was not of their opinion, for he further says in this 
chapter, (v. 40,) "But more blessed shall she be, if she so 
remain, according to my counsel ; and I think that I also have 
the Spirit of God." But it seems you believe that it was not 
St. Paul that had the Spirit of God, but your own Luther, 
who teaches you to believe the contrary; and this makes you 
prefer Luther's new notion to the sound doctrine of St. Paul, 
expressly declaring the contrary to what Luther affirms con- 
cerning virginity ; but if you believe Christ's own words, you 
shall see that he was not of Luther's opinion ; for he speaks 
thus of the matter : " There are eunuchs who have made them- 
selves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that 
can receive it, let him receive it." Matt. c. 19, v. 12. But 
if you believe Luther's words, (related here, No. 1,) there is 
none at all able to receive it ; but it is evident that Christ 
was not of his opinion ; otherwise he would not have said 
either the former or following words : " Verily, I say unto 
you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or 
brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, 
who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in 
the world to come life everlasting." Luke, c. 18, v. 29, 30. 
You see by these words the possibility of leading a chaste life, 
and also a reward promised for leaving a wife; and show me, if 
you can, a reward promised in Scripture for marrying a wife. 
4. I know that you object against us these words of St. 
Paul, that " it is the doctrine of devils to forbid marriage, 
and to command to abstain from meats." 1 Tim. 4, v. 3, 
&/C. To which I answer, that St. Paul speaks here only of 
the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, and other heretics, who 
taught that " the use of marriage came from the devil, and 
also that the devil had created certain meats," and therefore 
they would neither marry nor eat of those kinds of meats at 
any time ; and this occasioned St. Paul to declare then, (v. 3,) 
that " God created those meats," from which they always 
abstained. But surely, brother, you will not allege that this 
is our doctrine, whereas you know that we eat on other days 



89 

those kinds of meats from which we abstain on Fridays and 
Saturdays, and in Lent. As for marriage, we honor it more 
than yourselves, for we believe it to be a sacrament, which 
you do not, and we never give a divorce to those that were 
once lawfully married, as you do, either by the consent of 
your ministers, or an act of parliament, as appears by the di- 
vorce which the parliament granted to the duke of Norfolk. 
This is quite contrary to our practice, whereby you may per- 
ceive what great reverence we have for marriage, so that we 
cannot be numbered among those former heretics against 
whom St. Paul speaks, who taught the use of it to proceed 
from the devil ; and therefore they absolutely forbid ever to 
marry at all. As for us, we only declare marriage to be unlaw- 
ful and forbidden to those persons only, who knowingly and 
willingly had either vowed perpetual virginity, when they 
might have married if they pleased, or who knowingly and 
willingly consented to receive holy orders, when they might 
as freely have married, to which state they knew none to be ad- 
mitted, but such as would voluntarily and freely profess perpet- 
ual virginity ; therefore we cannot be said to forbid marriage, 
unless you say, that St. Paul forbade it, when he condemned 
the widows that consecrated themselves to the service of the 
Church, and would fain afterwards marry, of whom he says, 
" having damnation because they have made void their first 
faith," (1 Tim. c. 5, v. 12,) the vow of perpetual widowhood, 
which they took, when they might marry if they pleased ; it is 
therefore in this very same sense we declare marriage to be 
unlawful to all those who received holy orders, and vowed 
perpetual virginity ; for we know, by the word of God, that 
such people are obliged to perform what they had before 
promised to God, which you may also know to be true by the 
texts of Scripture produced in the second paragraph of this 
section. 

Objections answered. 

But pray, brother, how do you account for these following 
texts of Scripture, which are in direct opposition to your doc- 

8* 



90 

trine of celibacy or single life of priests ? First, we read in 
Matt. 19, v. 11, that " all men cannot receive this saying, 
save those to whom it is given." I answer, this text is wrong 
translated ; * for it ought to be translated thus : " All men 
do not receive this saying." Now there is a large differ- 
ence between not doing a thing and not being able to do it. 

The second is, " To avoid fornication, let every man have 
his own wife." 1 Cor. c. 7, v. 2. Well, what then ? Will 
you infer from thence, that marriage is the only means to 
avoid fornication? If you do, St. Paul, who had no wife, 
yet was no fornicator, will rise in judgment against you for 
abusing the sense of his sacred words. Nay, you will draw 
upon yourself the just indignation of numberless widows 
and widowers, maids and bachelors, in this country, who will 
tell you they can live free from fornication without engaging 
themselves in the bonds of wedlock. If, therefore, God's 
grace be not wanting to thousands among the laity, who live 
single to their very deaths, we cannot doubt but it flows more 
plentifully on those who embrace the single state out of a 
pure zeal to devote themselves entirely to his service. 
Whence it is plain St. Paul's words imply no general pre- 
cept, but only an advice to those, who, being under no en- 
gagements, are at full liberty to marry if they please, and find, 
perhaps, by experience, that marriage is the best security 
against their natural weakness. 

But does not St. Paul say it is better to marry than to 
burn ? He does so. But he does not say that marriage is 
the only remedy against burning. Let us suppose a married 
man so unhappy as to hate his own wife, and at the same time 
burn for the wife of his neighbor, (I fear the case is not im- 
possible:) must he marry her ? No, surely. What, then, must 
he do? I believe St. Paul would advise him to have recourse 

* If any one doubts the truth of what the author asserts here, and 
in many other places throughout this work, respecting the mistrans- 
lation of the Bible by Protestants, let him read Ward's Errata of the 
Protestant Bible, and he will at once be convinced that the charge is 
well founded. — Editor Boston edition. 



91 

to the remedies himself made use of against the buffets of 
Satan ; that is, to prayer and mortification. It is therefore 
plain that there are other remedies, besides that of marriage, 
provided by Almighty God against the burnings of concupis- 
cence ; and these are the remedies which persons engaged 
in holy orders and religious vows make use of when they find 
themselves assaulted by unlawful desires ; so that we may 
reasonably hope matters are not so bad as you represent 
them, when you tell us that forbidding to marry leads to 
much lewdness and villany, as fornication, adultery, incest, &c. 
Nay, if it does, St. Paul was highly to blame when he de- 
barred widows devoted to God the liberty of it. 

You say, thirdly, " Have we not power to* lead about a sis- 
ter, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of 
the Lord and Cephas? " 1 Cor. c. 9, v. 5. Here, again, the 
sacred word of God is put to the torture to force it to speak 
the language of flesh and blood. For, 1. How could St. 
Paul, who had no wife, have the power to lead one about ? 
2. How is it probable the apostles should lead their wives 
about, since St. Jerom assures us positively that they who 
were married lived separated from the use of wedlock? 
But 3dly, the whole context shows that St. Paul speaks not 
of a wife, but of a woman, or diaconissa, to attend him in his 
travels, and provide necessaries for him, probably out of her 
own substance. 

This, I say, is proved from the context. For the whole 
drift of the chapter whence it is taken (as appears from the 
title prefixed to it in the Protestant Bible) is to show that 
ministers of the gospel must live by the gospel. " Am I 
not (says St. Paul) an apostle ? Are not you my work in the 
Lord?" v. 1.- " Have we not power to eat and drink ? " v. 4. 
Then follows the text in question, which, truly translated, is 
this : Have we not power to lead about a sister, a woman, as 
well as the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and 
Cephas? v. 5. And he goes on thus : " Who goeth to war- 
fare any time at his own charges? Whoplanteth a vineyard, 



92 

and eateth not of the fruit? Or who feedeth a flock, and 
eateth not of the milk of the flock? " v. 6, &c. 

But must not the apostles have stood in need of more than 
was necessary for their own subsistence, if St. Paul spoke of 
the wives of his fellow-apostles, who were in no condition to 
maintain their husbands, but rather to be maintained by them 1 
So that their company would have been an additional charge 
to them, instead of a help ; especially if they lived together 
as husbands and wives, and an increase of children were 
continually coming upon them. It is therefore plain the 
Protestant translators have used violence to the aforesaid text, 
and made St. Paul speak things he never thought of, to 
render him favorable to the first reformers, and encourage 
others to follow their religious example. 

The 4th and 5th texts quoted by you have the same ten- 
dency, and are as follows : " A bishop must be blameless, 
the husband of one wife, (1 Tim. c. 3, v. 2,) having faithful 
children." Tit. c. 1, v. 6. I doubt not but you think this a 
clear text against us. And so it will be if you can infer 
from it that a bishop must be a married man, according to 
St. Paul's rule. But if that be his meaning, why did he not 
follow his own rule 1 For it is very certain St. Paul was a 
bishop, and it is no less certain he never was married. The 
true meaning therefore of his words is, that a man was not fit 
to be promoted to episcopacy, who had been married oftener 
than once ; so that the force of St. Paul's rule is not in the 
word wife, but in the word one. 

But does it not follow, at least, that St. Paul allowed bish- 
ops to marry once 1 I answer, it follows that a man who was 
or had been once married might be made a bishop. But it 
does not follow that bishops were allowed to marry after their 
consecration. And the reason of St. Paul's rule in the choice 
of persons to be promoted to holy orders was, because in his 
time virginity was so rare, both among Jews and Gentiles, 
that if neither married men nor widowers had been chosen, 
the Church would have been destitute of necessary pastors. 



93 

Yet even then he would not have those taken to the altar who 
had been married twice, and thereby appeared to have 
stronger ties to earth than was suitable to so holy an employ- 
ment. 

Your 6th text is, " Marriage is honorable in all, and the 
bed undenled." Heb. c. 13, v. 4. I answer, marriage is 
honorable in all; but sacrilege and adultery are not very 
honorable things. The pretended marriage of Theodore, the 
monk, appeared net at all honorable to St. Chrysostom, who 
told him it was worse than adultery. Nor was the marriage 
of widows, that " began to wax wanton against Christ," 
honorable in the judgment of St. Paul. And Luther's mar- 
riage with a nun was scandalous to the highest degree, even 
in the judgment of Melancthon, who was much scandalized 
at it. 

But do I then infer that the Protestant clergy live in con- 
tinual adultery 1 No. For I am as fully persuaded that their 
marriage is valid, as that their ordination is null. 

However, I cannot have the same opinion of the marriage 
of the first reformers; for many of them had been validly or- 
dained in the Catholic Church, and by their orders were tied 
to her laws and discipline. Some of them had, over and 
above, made solemn vows of perpetual chastity ; and I pre- 
sume vows made to God are not cobwebs, to be broken through 
at pleasure. I am not, however, surprised that Protestants, 
though now free from such engagements, should still stand 
up for the marriage both of religious and priests, by reason 
of the signal service it did to their church in its infancy. 
For the reformation was clinched by it, and the price of its 
full establishment were thousands of sacrileges and broken 
vows. 

Priests and nuns, whose example was like to have an in- 
fluence on many of both sexes, were too considerable a part of 
the Church to be neglected or overlooked in a general reform ; 
and liberty was not only the most proper bait to be set before 
them, but the best reason in the world to convince them that 
a reformation was necessary. But lest time and age, and the 



94 

troublesome after-qualms of conscience, should suggest dan- 
gerous thoughts of returning to their ancient Mother Church, 
the best expedient to keep them stanch to the cause was to 
hamper them fast in the noose of wedlock. Here, then, the 
pulpits were employed to preach down the obligation of 
religious vows. Scriptural texts were taught to speak a lan- 
guage agreeable to the desires of flesh and blood, nunneries 
were set open, and priests allowed to exchange their brevia- 
ries for more diverting company. Nay, to their great comfort 
and edification, Martin Luther, with his religious bride, Kate 
Boren, had already set the example ; and it was too charming 
not to be followed by many, who would have thought a mere 
change of religion a very dull and insipid thing to be damned 
for, if there had been nothing to be got by it in this world. 

Thus fallen priests and nuns became the nursing fathers 
and mothers of the reformed churches, and the new gospel 
was propagated, like mankind after the fall of Adam, not by 
a spiritual, but carnal generation. Not that all flocked in to 
become votaries to Venus; for great numbers abhorred the 
thing, and chose to be beggars abroad, and to fly for sanctity 
to foreign monasteries, rather than defile their souls, and dis- 
honor their sacred character, with practices unheard of before, 
though then varnished over with the plausible name of mar- 
riage. But let that be as it will, it is plain the reformation 
was built upon the ruins of broken vows, and would have 
gone on but very slowly, if that untoward block of celibacy 
had not been removed out of its way. 



SECTION XVII. 
Of Antichrist. 

1. Whereas the Scripture affirms that Antichrist shall be 
but one particular man, saying thus of him, (2 Thess. c. 2, 
v. 3,) " The man of sin, the son of perdition." " No, no," 



95 

say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " Antichrist is no par- 
ticular man; and though the fathers were of that opinion, as 
our Mr. Whitaker confesses, (lib. de Antichristo, p. 21,) yet 
they have erred ; wherefore Antichrist is a series of distinct 
popes, successively living, one after another." Truly, brother, 
if this doctrine had been true, it would prove that we have 
had already many hundred Antichrists, because there have 
been many hundred popes since the time of Christ ; yet I 
could never read, in any ancient or modern history, that any 
of those popes have been received by the Jews for the true 
Messias ; yet I see in Scripture that Christ foretold the con- 
trary of the man Antichrist, saying, " I am come in my 
Father's name, and you receive me not. If another shall come 
in his own name, him you will receive." John, c. 5, v. 43. 

2. Whereas the Scripture says of Antichrist's presumption, 
(2 Thess. c. 2, v. 4,) that " he is lifted up above all that is 
called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the 
temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " it cannot be true 
that Antichrist would lift himself above all that is called God ; 
because none of the popes, whom we affirm to be Antichrist, 
have ever assumed the arrogance that they would have them- 
selves worshipped above all that is called God." 

3. Whereas the Scripture says of Antichrist, (Rev. c. 13, 
v. 13,) " And he doth great signs, so that he maketh even fire 
to come down from heaven upon the earth, in the sight of 
men." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " such 
signs ought not to happen in the days of Antichrist, because 
we cannot prove that any of the popes have ever wrought 
them." 

4. Whereas the Scripture says, that Antichrist will cause 
(Rev. c. 13, v. 17) " that in his days no man shall buy or 
sell, but he that hath the mark or name of the beast, or the 
number of his name." " No, no," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, " Antichrist will not impose that upon the 
people in his own days, because the Roman Antichrist never 
hindered any body to buy or sell lawfully, neither did he re- 



96 

quire of those that bought and sold in his time, that they 
should have his mark, or the number of his name." 

5. Whereas the Scripture says (Rev. c. 11, v. 7, 8, &c.) 
that " in the streets of Jerusalem Antichrist shall kill the two 
witnesses which the Lord will send to prophesy against him." 
" No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " that cannot 
be verified of Antichrist ; because we cannot prove that 
ever the Roman Antichrist has killed those two prophets, 
either in Jerusalem or elsewhere. 

6. Whereas Christ says (Mark, c. 13, v. 24, 25, &c.) 
that " in those days, after the tribulation (of Antichrist,) 
the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her 
light, and the stars of heaven shall fall." " No, no," say 
the Protestant and Presbyterian, " such alterations were not 
to happen after the tribulation of Antichrist, for after all the 
excommunications and thunderbolts, which were fulminated 
against us by the Roman Antichrist, in his cursed council of 
Trent, yet we manifestly see that the sun, moon, and stars, 
shine now as bright as ever they did before." 

7. Whereas Christ says (Matt. c. 24, v. 22) that " for 
the sake of the elect, Antichrist's days shall be shortened." 
" No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " indeed his 
days are rather prolonged, for we see they are very numerous 
already, and we are now much afraid that they will continue 
longer than we expected in the beginning of our reformation ; 
for we thought then that we would immediately break down 
the walls of Rome, and pull Antichrist by the beard from 
his Papal throne." 

8. Whereas three several texts of Scripture affirm that 
the man Antichrist shall continue but three years and a half; 
" and he shall speak words against the Most High, and he 
shall think himself able to change times and laws, and they 
shall be delivered into his hand, until a time, and times, and 
half a time." Dan. c. 7, v. 25. " And from the time when 
the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomina- 
tion unto desolation set up, there shall be a thousand two 
hundred and ninety days." Dan. c. 12, v. 11. "And there 



97 

was given to it a mouth, speaking great things, and blasphe- 
mies, and power was given to it to act forty-two months." 
Rev. c. 13, v. 5. " No, no," say the Protestant and Presby- 
terian, " Antichrist must act longer than three years and a 
half, since our learned ministers affirm that the pope of Rome 
is Antichrist; for our Mr. Napper (On the Rev. pp. 43, 
63) says that " Pope Sylvester is the man, who reigned 
twenty-one years and four days." And Melancthon (in locis 
postrcmo editis) says, that " it is Pope Zozimus, who reigned 
three years, four months, and seven days." Beza (Confess. 
General, c. 7, sect. 12) affirms that it was " Pope Leo, who 
reigned twenty years, one month, and thirteen days." Mr. 
Foulk, (in his Answer to a Counterfeit Catholic, p. 36,) 
Dunham, (in his Treatise of Antichrist, lib. 1, c. 4,) Mr. 
Willet, (in his Synop. p. 160,) Mr. Parkins, (in his Expo- 
sition of the Creed, p. 307,) and Danasus, (contra Bellar. 
part 1, p. 131,) affirm that "Pope Bonifice the Third (who 
reigned twenty-one years, eight months, and twenty-three 
days) was the first Antichrist, and began to reign about the 
year 607." And Bullinger says (On the Apocalip. c. 13, ser. 
6\,fol. 193) that " Antichrist ought first to appear in the 
year 763;" and Junius, (On the Rev. c. 20, p. 257,) that 
" Hildebrand was the man, (who reigned twelve years, one 
month, and three days,) about the year of Christ 1074." 
And Mr. Fox affirms (in Apocalip. p. 98) that " Antichrist 
ought to come in the year 1300." 

9. You may now, brother, see, by these various opinions, 
the doctrine of your learned ministers, who in this respect 
are not unlike Samson's foxes, " whose tails were tied 
together, but their heads went different ways, in order to burn 
and destroy the Philistines' corn." Judges, c. 15, v. 4, &c. 
And precisely so your ministers proceed in this matter ; for 
they all agree in one opinion, alleging that " the pope of 
Rome is that Antichrist, who is so much spoken of and 
detested in Scripture ; " but their different opinions prove no 
more than that they all agree in order to deceive the poor 
ignorant people, whom they persuade that their own foolish 
9 



98 

fancies are conformable to the word of God ; and if you 
reflect seriously on the several answers which I gave to the 
aforesaid texts of Scripture, you will plainly see that they 
are truly deduced from your own principles ; and conse- 
quently you will perceive that the pope of Rome is not the 
Antichrist of which the Scripture makes mention. 



SECTION XVIII. 

Of the Chief Pastor of the Church. 

1. Whereas Christ said to Peter, (Matt. c. 16, v. 19,) " And 
I will give up to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound 
also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, 
it shall be loosed in heaven." " No, no, Christ," say the 
Protestant and Presbyterian, " you gave no such keys or par- 
ticular power to Peter, any more than you gave to the rest of 
the apostles ; for if you had given him such a particular 
power, our Mr. Fulke would not have said, (in his Confuta- 
tion of the Papist's Quarrels, p. 4,) that ' many of the ancient 
fathers were deceived, to think more of Peter's prerogative, 
and the pope of Rome's dignity, than by the word of God 
was given to either of them.' " Indeed, brother, it clearly 
appears by these words of Mr. Fulke, that the holy fathers of 
the primitive Church have not been of your religion, which 
affirms the contrary of what they openly professed and taught 
concerning St. Peter and the pope of Rome's supremacy; 
and I think that it is safer for me in conscience to prefer 
these holy fathers' judgments herein, to your ministers' 
new notions, which are warranted by no Scripture or an- 
tiquity. As for their evasion or subterfuge, alleging that the 
rest of the apostles had as much power as St. Peter, I an- 
swer that we acknowledge the power of loosing and binding 
sins was given to all .the apostles, after Christ had spoken 



99 

the former words to St. Peter, as is evident, John, c. 20, v. 23. 
But we say that " the keys of the kingdom of heaven were 
never said in Scripture to be given to any of the apostles, 
except to St. Peter only, and as we lawfully infer that he is 
the commander-in-chief of the army to whom the keys of 
the city are delivered at his entrance into the town, and that 
he is the chief officer of a castle or family, to whom the mas- 
ter commits the keys," even so we may as lawfully infer 
that Christ, by telling St. Peter that " he would give him the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven," meant to confer on him a 
superior degree of dignity, which would not be common to 
all the rest of the apostles; and you may plainly discover the 
truth of this by these other words of Christ : " Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath not re- 
vealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven ; and I say 
to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
my church," &c. Matt. c. 16, v. 17, 18. That is, "I will 
build my church upon your firm and true faith, not only for 
your own sake, but also for the perpetual good of the church ; " 
and lest people should imagine that this building of the 
church on St. Peter's faith should be overthrown at Peter's 
death, hence Christ declares that himself had prayed to his 
heavenly Father, that " his faith should not fail." Luke, 
c. 22, v. 32. And as that faith was then to continue in the true 
Church of Christ, in all future ages, even so St. Peter's supre- 
macy was to be transmitted to his lawful successors in all 
future ages ; for as the chair of Moses was always filled by the 
successors of Moses till the coming of Christ, even so the chair 
of Peter was to be so furnished with such successors until the 
coming of Christ, at the day of judgment ; for Peter succeeded 
Christ upon earth, even as Aaron succeeded Moses. Levit. 
c. 8. And Linus succeeded Peter, even as Eleazar succeeded 
Aaron, &.c. ; so that, as God had provided his church succes- 
sively in the old law with high priests, who, for the personal 
wickedness of any of them, did not cease to govern his church 
by them, even so he hath provided his Church, in the law of 
grace, with such high priests as should have (by his bounty) 



100 

many advantages above the high priests of the old law; and it 
cannot be truly said, that this derogates from Christ's honor 
or priesthood ; for though Christ himself is said to be the 
foundation and chief corner-stone, yet we see, from Scripture, 
that he did not think it unfit to communicate the title of 
foundation to others, as is evident by the following words of 
St. Paul : " We are built upon the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner- 
stone." Ephes. c. 2, v. 20. As it does not therefore derogate 
from Christ's honor that he communicated the aforesaid title 
of foundation to others, so it dees not derogate from his honor 
(inasmuch as he is said to be the Chief Priest) that he com- 
municated the title of being chief priest to others ; and as 
it does not derogate from Christ's honor, inasmuch as he is 
said to be the King and supreme Lord of the universe, that 
he has given the title of king to others of subordinate power, 
whom God thought necessary for the proper government of 
his own people, and therefore obliged his people to obey 
them. 1 Pet. c. 2, v. 13. And even so it does not derogate 
from Christ's honor (inasmuch as he is said to be the Su- 
preme Head of the Church) that he has given the title of 
being his own vicar-general, and supreme head of the Church 
upon earth, in spiritual affairs, to St. Peter, and to his lawful 
successors, whom he thought necessary, for the proper gov- 
ernment of his Church ; and therefore he obliged us to obey 
them, " not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." 
Rom. c. 13, v. 5. You see, brother, by these examples, how 
falsely your ministers infer that the true Church of Christ 
ought not to have a supreme pastor upon earth, because 
Christ himself is said to be her Chief Priest and chief 
Corner-stone. 

2. Whereas the Scripture says (John, c. 21, v. 15, &c.) 
that " Christ gave in charge to Peter, to feed his lambs and 
sheep." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
" Christ gave Peter no more charge to feed his lambs and sheep 
than he gave to every one of the rest of the apostles, as our 
ministers affirm." Pray, brother, show me this doctrine, by 



101 

some text of clear Scripture, or else acknowledge ingenuously 
that you are totally unable to produce such a text, but that you 
only give credit to this doctrine upon your ministers' word. 
In the mean time, I shall advert to what Christ says here of 
Peter : " Lovest thou me more than these? " (v. 15 :) for it is 
a sign that he then intended to give him, for that greater love, 
some exalted dignity which would not be common to the rest 
of the apostles, whom then he excluded, by speaking thrice 
in the same terms to Peter in the singular number ; and after 
Peter gave him an affirmative answer at each time, then Christ 
spoke, and gave him the charge of feeding both his lambs 
and sheep, which charge still remains ; because the office of 
a pastor is an ordinary and perpetual office, and as long as 
there are lambs and sheep to be fed, so long there must be a 
pastor to feed and govern them ; which because Peter could 
not perform in person these many hundred years past, there 
must needs be some other lawful successor, to execute this 
office in his place ; for this high pastorship upon earth was 
chiefly instituted by Christ, through the paternal care and 
love he had for his church, which he intended should stand 
forever, according to this manner of government. 



SECTION XIX. 

Of Prayer for the Dead, Purgatory , and Indulgences. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says (Mach. c. 42, v. 43) that 
" Judas Machabeus sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to 
Jerusalem, for sacrifice to be offered for the sin of the dead, 
thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection; 
for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise 
again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for 
the dead. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to 
pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, "it is neither holy 
9* 



102 

nor lawful to pray for the dead, and we deny that book to be 
canonical which affirms it. And this occasioned our Mr. 
Fulke (in his Confutation of Purgatory , p. 362,) to say that 
* Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, Jerom, Chrysostom, and a 
great many more of the fathers, have erred in believing that 
sacrifice for the dead was an apostolic tradition.' " * Truly, 
brother, it plainly appears, by these former words of your own 
Mr. Fulke, that these holy fathers were neither Protestants 
nor Presbyterians ; for if they had been either the one or the 
other, they would not think it would be lawful to offer sacri- 
fice for the souls of those that were dead. And it also appears 
by Mr. Fulke's accusation of the holy fathers, that the doc- 
trine of purgatory is no new invention of the pope, though 
your ministers tell you the contrary. 

2. As for their denying that the book of Machabees is 
canonical, I answer, that the Church, which is all the testi- 
mony we have to prove that the Bible is the word of God, 
(see sect. 24,) tells us also that this book is canonical, and the 
third council of Carthage (held in the year 397) has asserted 
it {con. 47) in the canon, which the fathers of that council 

* Let these illustrious fathers of the Church speak for themselves. 
St. Chrysostom says, " It is not in vain that oblations are made for 
the dead ; it is the ordinance of the Holy Ghost, who designs that we 
should help one another.' 1 '' St. Augustine also says, " Oblations, 
prayers, and alms in abundance, are the true comfort we can procure 
to those who are dead." To show still further the antiquity of the 
custom of praying for the dead, I will add another proof from 
St. Augustine, who lived in the end of the fourth century. It is 
taken from the 13th chapter of the 9th book of his Confessions 
11 1 therefore, thou God of my heart, become a petitioner to thee for 
the sins of this my mother, &c. Lord, my God, do thou inspire thy 
servants, my brethren, thy children, my masters, whom I serve both zcith 
my heart, and my voice, and my pen, that as many of them as shall 
read these things may remember, at thine altar, Monica, thy hand- 
maid, and Patricius,her husband." Thus speaks the luminary of the 
fourth century, which is more than sufficient to convince the most 
incredulous that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church of the 
present day, in relation to this subject, is the same as that held in 
the days of St. Augustine. — Ed. 



103 

would not have done, if it had not then been generally be- 
lieved by the Catholic Church that this book was canonical. 
But lest I should be too tedious in proving the truth of it, I 
will therefore only advance a proof which seems to be indis- 
putably granted by your own ministers; that is, that this 
book is written by a true and faithful writer of the ancient 
church history ; or else why do they place it in some of your 
Bibles ? And without doubt also this book was written be- 
fore our Savior's time ; so that by the most grave testimony 
of such an ancient writer of ecclesiastical history, you must 
allow, first, that Judas Machabeus (who was then high priest, 
and also the chief commander of the Jews, God's only true 
servants in those times) held prayer for the dead to be lawful. 
Secondly, you must acknowledge that all the Jewish soldiers 
(being godly men, who had devoted their lives for the defence 
of the true faith) concurred in this act of piety ; for the text 
says, that the twelve thousand drachms of silver had been a 
contribution made by the troops, that it might be offered as a 
sacrifice for the sins of their fellow-soldiers, who were slain 
in battle. Thirdly, you must also confess that this was not a 
private opinion in those times, but a thing done conformably 
to the custom of the Jewish church ; which to this very day 
employs prayer for the dead, as is evident from the books 
written by the Jewish rabbies, who lived before and after the 
birth of Christ ; and in proof I shall produce the following 
authors, who declare this truth : Rabbi Simeon (in lib. 20, 
Ar. in Cap. 18 Gen.,) Menachim Siam, (in Comment, ad 
Levit. c. 16,) Rabbi Hisim Alphes, (Scholiastes, ad cap. 
Roch.,) Rabbi Kimchi David, (in Psalm 32,) and Rabbi 
Moses, (in his Symbolum Fidei Judcsorum,) printed in the year 
1569, fol. 26, 27, and 32, where you may see the Jewish pre- 
scribed form of prayer for the dead ; nay, your own Whita- 
ker's words are a sufficient testimony ; for he acknowledges 
(cont. DurcBum, lib. 1, p. 85) that " prayer for the dead is some 
of the Jewish doctrine ; " so you may now perceive that what 
I have alluded to above is true, viz., that what Judas Macha- 
beus had done, concerning prayers for the dead, was not the 



104 

private opinion of him alone, but the common custom of the 
Jewish church ; and if it had been then a novelty, the 
priests of Jerusalem (who knew full well their own custom 
of offering sacrifices) would not receive that money on such 
an account, lest they should be damnably guilty for conniving 
at the offering of an unlawful sacrifice ; but you see they were 
so far from suspecting its unlawfulness, that, on the contrary, 
it was their own common doctrine ; and though it was so 
publicly recorded, not fully two hundred years before Christ, 
and was generally believed and practised even in his and in 
the apostles' time, yet we can never discover that any person 
was then reprehended by them for maintaining it ; even Cal- 
vin himself, in his Institutes, (1. 3, c. 5, sect. 10,) admits that 
it was a received custom in the church to pray for the dead, 
above thirteen hundred years before his time. 

3. Nay, we see that it was so believed by the very apostles 
themselves; and hence St. Paul says, "What shall they do 
who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again ? 
Why are they then baptized for them ? " 1 Cor. c. 15, 
v. 29. To what purpose do men undergo penance for the 
dead, if there be no resurrection, and if the soul do not still 
survive, expecting to be reunited to the body 1 St. Paul can 
speak here of no other baptism, that can profit the dead, but 
the baptism of penance; for so St. Mark, (c. 1,) and so St. 
Luke, (Acts, c. 2,) speak; and it is most certain that St. Paul 
takes his argument from that which can be performed for the 
dead with profit to them. We, therefore, who do well in bap- 
tizing with water young children that are not able to assist 
themselves, do also well to baptize the dead, by taking on 
ourselves this painful baptism of penance and prayer in their 
behalf, whom we know to be then wholly unable to help 
themselves, or ease their pains ; and as God's infinite good- 
ness is so merciful as to give effect to the baptism of chil- 
dren performed by us, even so he is merciful in giving effect 
to that other baptism of penance, which we perform for those 
poor souls who departed out of this life with some small sins, 
viz., an idle word, or a jocose lie, &c, for which his great 



105 

goodness doth not require eternal punishment; but because 
" nothing defiled can enter into heaven." Rev. c. 21, v. 27. 
Therefore he urges them to suffer in that temporal purging 
fire of purgatory, until they are sufficiently cleansed from 
those spots of small sins ; and when they are thus purified, 
then he admits them to the enjoyment of his heavenly glory, 
as the following text doth clearly evince : " I will wait for 
God my Savior ; my God will hear me : rejoice not, thou my 
enemy, over me, because I am fallen : I shall arise when I sit 
in darkness : the Lord is my light. I will bear the wrath of 
the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he judge my 
cause, and execute judgment for me : (behold what follows :) 
he will bring me forth into the light : I shall behold his jus- 
tice." Micha, c. 7, v. 7, &c. Pray, brother, tell me from 
whence will God bring him to that light. Surely you will not 
say, that it is out of the hell of the damned spirits, for out of 
this there is no redemption ; therefore it must be out of some 
other place, in which the soul suffers only for a time, and not 
perpetually. 

4. You have an additional proof from these words of St. 
Paul : " If any man's work (that is, small sins, which he calls 
works) burn, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be 
saved, yet so as by fire." 1 Cor. c. 3, v. 15. You see there- 
fore by clear Scripture, how the soul may suffer, after this 
life, the temporal punishment of a purging fire; and also, by 
the following text, that we shall be accountable " for every 
idle word that we speak." Matt. c. 12, v. 36. But a lesser 
account will be required for them than for great sins, which 
Christ calls beams, and these only motes. Matt. c. 7, v. 3. 
Yet, because this stain of small sins must be purged before 
the soul goes to heaven, we are therefore liable to some pun- 
ishment for them, but not eternal ; for as we would think him 
a tyrant, who would punish every offence, both great and small, 
with a cruel death, so we would have too hard an opinion of 
God's justice if we should believe that for a small lie, or an 
idle word, he would punish the delinquent with the endless 
and unspeakable torment of hell fire, if the person die with- 



106 

out repentance, as thousands must needs do, who die suddenly, 
or out of their senses, or in their sleep. And lest we should 
entertain this unjust opinion of God's justice, Christ himself 
gives us a very clear proof of the contrary : " The servant who 
knew the will of his Lord, and does not according to his will, 
shall be beaten with many stripes ; but he that knew it not, 
and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few 
stripes." Luke, c. 12, v. 47, &,c. When, therefore, it happens 
that people die, having only these small sins, for which they 
are to give an account, they must be beaten only with these 
few stripes, and not with many, which would happen if these 
stripes were to be inflicted in hell for all eternity. 

5. Whereas the Scripture says, speaking of Christ, (Zach- 
arias, c. 9, v. 11,) " Thou also, by the blood of thy testament, 
hast sent forth the prisoners out of the pit, wherein there is 
no water." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
" he never sent such prisoners out of any pit at all. And 
so our Catechism against Popery says (p. 54) that ' it would 
be a great rashness to think that God takes pleasure in pun- 
ishing his children for sins already pardoned.' " Pray, brother, 
content not yourself with this foolish doctrine, but oblige 
your ministers to show you, by some clear text of Scripture, 
(if they can,) that there is no such pit, wherein souls could 
be kept for a certain time, and not perpetually ; and though 
I have shown you already (by the word of God) that there is 
such a prison, yet, for further proof, observe what Christ 
himself tells you concerning it, saying, " Make an agree- 
ment with thy adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way 
with him, lest perhaps thy adversary deliver thee to the judge, 
and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into 
prison ; amen, amen, I say to thee, Thou shalt not go from 
thence till thou pay the last farthing," Matt. c. 5, v. 25, 26. 
St. Jerom, in his commentary upon these words, says, 
" That is what the text declares, Thou shalt not go out ot 
prison until thou pay even thy little sins." You see there*- 
fore by plain Scripture, and by St. Jerom' s commentary 
upon it, that, after atoning for our little sins, there is a 



107 

release for the soul, and consequently forgiveness of some 
sins in the world to come ; and if there had been then no 
forgiveness of sins, Christ would not express the following 
words : " It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world 
nor the world to come." Matt. c. 12, v. 32. For he supposes, 
by this expression, that there are some sins that are forgiven 
in the world to come, from which he excludes the sin against 
the Holy Ghost, of which he speaks in this passage. 

6. Now, as to what your Catechism says, viz., that " it 
would be a great rashness to think that God takes pleasure 
in punishing his children for sins already forgiven," it is 
manifestly against the express word of God, as it is evident 
by what we read in the book of Numbers, that when the 
people had grievously offended God, by murmuring and sin- 
ning against him, yet when Moses prayed for them, the Lord 
said thus : " I have forgiven, according to thy word ; but yet 
all the men that have seen the signs that I have done in 
Egypt, and in the wilderness, shall not see the land for 
which I swore to their fathers, Your carcasses shall lie in the 
wilderness, your children shall wander in the desert forty 
years, and shall bear your fornication, until the carcasses of 
their fathers be consumed in the desert." Num. c. 14, v. 20, 
22, 23, 32, 33. You see, therefore, by Scripture, that Gcd 
had forgiven those people their sins, and for those very same 
sins which he forgave, these sinners died in the wilderness, 
and their children suffered, for the space of forty years, 
all the troubles and fatigues of wandering in a wilderness. 
Can, then, any man of common sense wonder if they who 
had received pardon on these terms (and then were slain the 
very next day by. their enemies) should for a time, yea, per- 
haps forty years, suffer some punishment after death ? Eternal 
punishment (the former sin being forgiven) they could not 
suffer, if they did not commit other sins ; yet manifestly some 
punishment after death could not but be due to them, seeing 
that so great a punishment was so justly laid on their children 
for that whole space of forty years. We read also in the 
second book of Samuel, that, upon David's repentance for 



108 

his sin of murder and adultery, God spoke to him by the 
prophet Nathan, as follows : " The Lord hath taken away 
thy sin ; nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the 
enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing the child 
that is born to thee shall surely die : and it came to pass on 
the seventh day, that the child died." 2 Sam. c. 12, v. 13, 
14, 18. Behold the sin taken away, and yet a punishment 
still remains due, even for that very sin, which was then for- 
given ; and I might point out to you several other examples 
of this from the Scripture; but the aforesaid will suffice, 
because by them it is made evident that, upon the true repent- 
ance of a sinner, though the pain of eternal punishment be 
then forgiven, yet the delinquent remains liable to the tempo- 
ral punishment, which, when he suffers it not in this world 
before his death, he must suffer in the world to come, but not 
in the hell of the damned, because the sin is forgiven : 
therefore it must be in the prison of purgatory, out of which 
the soul cannot go " until he pay the last farthing." Matt. 
c. 5, v. 26. 

7. Whereas the Scripture says, (1 Pet. c. 3, v. 18, &c.,) 
" Because Christ also indeed suffered for our sins, being put 
to death, died once in the flesh, but by the spirit brought to 
life, in which he also came and preached to those spirits that 
were in prison, who in the days of Noah had been incredu- 
lous when the ark was building." " No, no," say the Prot- 
estant and Presbyterian, " Christ's soul never preached to 
such spirits that were in prison, neither did it descend into 
hell, or into your Popish ' Limbus PatrumJ but into the 
grave, as our learned ministers affirm ; and hence our Carlisle 
wrote an entire whole book against that Papistical error which 
alleges the contrary." Pray, brother, do not think to stop 
my mouth or pen by such silly answers, for I always insist 
upon one point, which obliges you to show me your principles 
by the express word of God, or by some text of Scripture as 
it is expounded by the holy fathers of the primitive church, 
in their commentaries ; show me, therefore, by such a text 
of Scripture, which prison that is, and who those spirits to 



109 

which Christ then preached after being put to death. Surely 
that prison cannot be the hell of the damned, for those souls 
could derive no benefit by Christ's preaching to them ; be- 
cause for all eternity there is no redemption for them. 
Therefore it must be some other prison, out of which there 
was a hope of release ; and if you search your whole Bible 
from the first of Genesis to the last verse of the Revelations, I 
defy you to find out any such prison, except that which we 
call Limbus Patrum, or Purgatory. 

8. This is that place to which the Scriptures sometimes 
attribute the name hell, as you may see by the following 
text : " Christ being slain, God raised him up ; having loosed 
the sorrows of hell." Acts, c. 2, v. 24. Your good ministers 
have corrupted this text by putting in the word death, instead 
of the word hell, that thereby they might obscure the meaning 
and force of the text ; yet I see they have truly translated 
with us that prophecy of David — " Thou wilt not leave my 
soul in hell ; nor wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corrup- 
tion." Psalm 16, v. 10. St. Peter applies these words to 
Christ's soul, and not to David's. " For," saith he, " David 
being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn to him, 
with an oath, that of the fruits of his loins one should sit 
upon his throne, seeing he spoke of the resurrection of 
Christ; for neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh 
see corruption." Acts, c. 2, v. 30, 31. What more proof of 
Christ's soul descending into hell can reasonably be required 
by a Christian, who pretends not to be an infidel? And if 
you believe St. Augustin, he tells you the same truth : " That 
our Lord, being mortified in the flesh, went into hell, is very 
certain ; for that prophecy which saith, ' Thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell,' cannot be contradicted, which lest any man 
should presume to understand otherwise, (as your ministers do 
now-a-days,) St. Peter doth expound it in the Acts of the 
Apostles, &c. ; " and then he concludes with the following 
words: " Who, then, except an infidel, will deny Christ to 
have been in hell 1 " St. Augustin, Epist. ad Evod. 99. And 
speaking on these words of Christ to the good thief, (Luke, 
10 



110 

c. 23, v. 43,) " This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise," 
he also says, " It is not to be thought by these words that 
paradise is heaven, for the man Christ Jesus was not to be 
in heaven on that day, but in hell according to his soul, and 
in the grave according to his flesh : the Scripture clearly 
shows that he was in hell according to his soul." St. Au- 
gustin, Epist. 57, ad Dardan. But, as the same holy father 
shows, (on the 87th Psalm,) he was so in hell, that he was free 
from suffering any torments in his soul ; but he began there 
his triumph over the infernal powers, freeing the souls of the 
just from their captivity, and carrying them most gloriously 
with him to heaven, according to this passage of St. Paul : 
" Ascending on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to 
men ; that he ascended, what is it, but because he also de- 
scended first into the lower parts of the earth ? " Ephes. c. 4, 
v. 8, 9. Upon these words St. Jerom speaks thus in his 
commentary : " Our Lord and Savior descended into hell, 
that, being victorious, he might lead with him the souls of 
those who were kept there enclosed ; whence it came to pass 
that, after his resurrection, many bodies of the saints were seen 
in the holy city." 

9. You see now, brother, how we have all the former texts 
of Scripture (to which I might add many more) in proof of 
that place which we call purgatory ; yet they are so little 
regarded by you, that you rather give credit to your minis- 
ters' ridiculous contradictions and foolish evasions, than be- 
lieve what God tells you here, both in the New and Old Tes- 
tament. Your ministers make use of so many tricks in ex- 
pounding the fifth article of the Apostles' Creed, (which says 
" that Christ descended into hell,") that it would be too 
tedious for me to relate the pitiful shifts to which the defence 
of their bad cause drives them. The most part of these men 
will have you to say that Christ descended only into the 
grave, and so by this they retrench the whole article, and 
persuade you that you ought to say, " was crucified, dead, 
and buried, he descended into the grave." But your Bishop 
Usher would have you substitute in place of " descended 



Ill 

into hell," " he ascended into heaven ; " and so for descended 
you have ascended, and for the word hell you have the word 
heaven. But your Presbyterian ministers, finding that these 
subterfuges are altogether insufficient, thought it the easiest 
way for themselves to deny that the creed itself was apostolic, 
which they have done, (as may be seen by their Shorter Cate- 
chism, p. 258,) that thereby they might render the people 
regardless .of what it contains, when all its authority is taken 
away. Indeed, I confess that this Presbyterian shift might, in 
some manner, serve their turn concerning this point, if the 
truth of purgatory were not as expressly contained in the 
Scriptures as it is in the Apostles' Creed ; and let them who 
believe the creed to be apostolic, observe what St. Cyril 
and the fathers of the Alexandrian council declare to Nesto- 
rius the heretic, who pretended to believe the Nicene Creed, 
and yet denied the blessed virgin Mary to be the mother of 
God ; wherefore these fathers wrote him the following words : 
(Epist. 10.) "It is not sufficient that you profess with us the 
symbol of faith ; for you do not understand nor expound it 
rightly, but rather perversely, although you confess its words 
with your tongue." I say the same to those who confess the 
creed to be apostolic ; for the light of reason might show 
them, that it is not sufficient for salvation to confess the 
words of the creed with the tongue, but that it is also neces- 
sary to understand and believe it in that true sense and mean- 
ing in which the apostles understood it, when they left it to 
believers, as a summary comprehending the chief articles of 
the Christian faith. 

Objections answered, 

But, brother, notwithstanding all you have said on the 
subject, we shall prove from the following texts of clear 
Scripture that there is no such place as purgatory. 1st. 
" Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord ; from henceforth, 
says the spirit, that they may rest from their labor," Rev, 



112 

14, v. 13. I answer, that death puts an end to all laboring 
or working for salvation, according to these words of our 
Savior : " The night cometh, when no man can work." John, 
c. 9, v. 4. But it does not put an end to all suffering, except 
it be in relation to such pious souls as are perfectly innocent 
or purified by their sufferings in this life. 

2dly. The doctrine of purgatory is dangerous and ground- 
less from five reasons. First, because there is no ground for 
it in Scripture. Secondly, because they that belong to God 
can be nowhere afflicted but he is afflicted with them. The 
first, brother, is answered already, and I promise to answer 
the second as soon as I have capacity enough to understand 
that it is any thing to the purpose. 

3dly. Because it denies the fulness of Christ's satisfaction. 
I answer, that if suffering for our sins in the life to come be 
injurious to Christ's satisfaction, then suffering for them in 
this life, carrying our cross, and bearing worthy fruits of 
repentance, to which the gospel exhorts us, must likewise be 
injurious to it. 

The 4th reason is, because the doctrine of purgatory les- 
sens the horrid nature of sin. I answer, if purgatory could 
expiate the guilt of mortal sin, or if men were naturally fond 
of suffering bitterly even for lesser offences, I should be of 
your opinion. But it is above my comprehension that pun- 
ishments and sufferings should lessen the horror of sin. 

The last reason against purgatory is, that the desire 
St. Paul had of being dissolved was, that he might be with 
Christ. Phil. c. 1, v. 23. Very right; and it is the desire of 
all pious souls. But they leave it to God to judge, whether 
at their dissolution they shall be worthy to be immediately 
admitted to his blessed sight ; and resign themselves entirely 
to his holy will and pleasure. 

As to what you say, that the doctrine of purgatory impairs 
the confidence and comforts of the saints, I can easily guess 
what sort of saints you mean. But if the fear of purgatory 
lessens any man's confidence in God, surely the fear of hell 



113 

will lessen it much more ; and yet we are all exhorted in the 
gospel to fear Him who can cast both soul and body into hell. 
Matt. c. 10, v. 28. 

10. Whereas Christ says, (Matt. c. 16, v. 19,) " And I 
will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and 
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also 
in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall 
be loosed also in heaven." " No, no, Christ," say the 
Protestant and Presbyterian, " you did not give that power of 
loosing to the Church, in order to grant any indulgences, as 
the Papists pretend to grant, who often give indulgences of 
many hundred years to people, and do also hereby forgive 
them those sins which they did not yet commit." I beseech 
you, brother, to show me (if you can) by clear Scripture, 
that it is not in the power of the Church to grant indulgences ; 
and if you offer to produce such a text, (which I defy you to 
do,) you will consequently condemn the daily practice of your 
own ministers, who upon certain considerations, and at the 
serious repentance of their public penitents, often remit them 
some of that penance, which they first oblige them to per- 
form ; and truly this is the same method which the Catholic 
Church practises, when she gives indulgences, which she de- 
clares to be no more than a relaxation or remission of some part 
(or the whole) of those penitential works, to which a sinner 
is liable by the ancient canons of the Church, which enjoined, 
for certain sins, certain periods of time to do penance; and 
this according to the nature and gravity of the sin commit- 
ted ; for example : to fast so many months on bread and 
water for such a sin, to fast so many years for another greater 
sin, and so forth ; so that a great sinner, by blasphemies, per- 
juries, or the like, might in one week, or in one month, run 
in debt to those canons, above a hundred, or perhaps a thou- 
sand, years' penance ; which penalties the clemency of church 
discipline changes into a milder and less severe satisfaction ; 
and this she does not for the sake of receiving money, or 
bribes, as some of your sect falsely allege ; for several general 
councils and popes' decrees have expressly prohibited to 
10* 



114 

give or receive any sort of gift, either directly or indirectly, 
for indulgences, or for any other spiritual function ; so that 
when indulgences are given, they are granted gratis, and be- 
fore any one can derive benefit from them, we teach that they 
must sincerely repent of their former sins, and also perform 
those pious works, which he that grants the indulgence ap- 
points, and the performance of these good works is a prac- 
tice of excellent virtues ; for example, prayers, almsdeeds, 
and the like ; so that indulgence, in effect, is but a commuta- 
tion to a less severe satisfaction, instead of the great and 
rigorous penance enjoined by the canons ; and this is the 
meaning of the indulgences which are often granted for a 
hundred or a thousand years ; and not that they signify a for- 
giveness of sins not yet committed, (as you often told me 
heretofore;) for this was never the intention of the Catholic 
Church in granting indulgences; but when the sins which 
any one has already committed are so great that they deserve 
a hundred or a thousand years' penance, according to the 
canons, the same Church that framed these canons, being now 
moved by some just cause, and seeing the contrition of the 
penitent, is mercifully pleased to commute that long pen- 
ance into a shorter ; and I appeal to the serious and unbiased 
reader, if the belief of this principle, according to the doc- 
trine of the Catholic Church, gives any latitude to sin ; 
whereas we teach that there is no benefit to be expected by 
indulgences, till first the sinner reconciles himself to God by 
penance, and not, as Dr. Stillingfleet, either maliciously or 
ignorantly, insinuates. But, let him say what he pleases, the 
power of the Church, in granting indulgences, is evident to 
any who rightly believe both the former and following texts : 
Matt. c. 18, v. 18. John, c. 20, v. 22, 23. And, brother, if 
you have not a mind to be accounted as a heathen or publi- 
can, (Matt. c. 18, v. 17,) you ought to hear and observe what 
the Church universally teaches concerning this and all the 
other points of her doctrine. 



115 



Objections answered. 

You talk largely, brother, concerning the authority of your 
church ; but we build our authority upon the Scriptures, which 
plainly contradict your doctrine of indulgences in the follow- 
ing texts of clear Scripture. The first is, " There is no par- 
don of sin, but by the mercy of God through the blood of 
Christ." Rom. c. 5, v. 10, and Eph. c. 1, v. 7. I answer, all 
this is very orthodox, but nothing to the purpose ; because 
indulgences are not a pardon of sins, but a release of tempo- 
ral punishments due to them. And even this is not granted 
but by the power given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and 
through his sacred blood and the mercies of God. 

The second proof is, because there is no such thing in 
Scripture, that the merits of one saint should be able to make 
satisfaction for the sins of another. But, brother, I hope it is 
plain in Scripture that the merits of Jesus Christ are able to 
make satisfaction for the sins of even all mankind. And all 
indulgences have their validity from his infinite merits. How- 
ever, I answer, it is very plain in Scripture that the prayers of 
saints have often appeased God's wrath, and stopped his hand 
from punishing the sins of others so severely as they had de- 
served; and it cannot be doubted but it was the faith and 
virtuous behavior of those saints that rendered their prayers 
so available in the sight of God. Thus God Almighty sent 
Eliphaz to his servant Job, to be prayed for by him with this 
assurance : " For him will I accept, lest I deal with you after 
your folly." Job, c. 42, v. 8. Thus likewise was God 
grievously offended at the mutiny of the Israelites against 
Moses, and had resolved to send a plague amongst them to 
destroy them. He was appeased upon the earnest soli- 
citation of Moses, and answered him, " I have pardoned 
them, according to thy word," (Num. c. 14, v. 20,) to wit, 
the temporal punishment he had designed to inflict upon 
them. 

The third and last proof is, because " Christ needeth not 



116 

any merits of saints to be added to his satisfaction." This is 
most certainly true, because the satisfaction Christ has made 
for us is of infinite value ; and whatever is infinite cannot 
need any thing to be added to it. But will you infer from 
thence that therefore we need not do penance for our sins, 
nor receive the sufferings God sends us in the spirit of 
penance? If you do, you give the lie to the word of God 
in a thousand places. Nay, there is not a truth more certain 
than that we are bound to punish our sins, and do penance 
for them, notwithstanding the infinite satisfaction made by 
Christ. 

But why are we bound to do this, if Christ has fully satis- 
fied the divine justice, and stands in no need of having our 
satisfaction joined to his 1 The reason is, because Christ 
having purchased an absolute dominion over us with the infi- 
nite price of his blood, it cannot be disputed he may lay what 
terms or conditions he pleases upon us as means, without 
which the price he has paid down shall not be applied unto us. 
And therefore, though it be certainly true, that having satisfied 
superabundantly for us, he might have applied that satisfaction 
to us without subjecting us to any penal works or temporal 
sufferings, after the guilt of sin. together with its eternal pun- 
ishment, was remitted, yet it pleased his infinite wisdom, both 
for our greater good and the manifestation of his justice as 
well as mercy, to establish things upon another foot, by 
changing the eternal punishment into a temporal one, and 
obliging us to purchase the fruits and application of his infi- 
nite satisfaction by doing worthy fruits of penance, and sub- 
mitting humbly and patiently to the sufferings he shall see 
fit to lay upon us. And it is this we call satisfaction; 
which (to express myself in the very words of the celebrated 
Bossuet, p. 68) is in effect but an application of the infinite 
satisfaction made by Jesus Christ, whether to ourselves or 
others. 

Whence it follows, that, though Christ needs not our suf- 
ferings or penal works to be added to his satisfaction, he 
requires them of us. And unless we submit to the laws he 



117 

has thought fit to impose upon us, we render ourselves unwor- 
thy of becoming partakers of the happiness he has purchased 
for us. 



SECTION XX. 

Of the Worship and Invocation of Angels and Saints. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says (Joshua, c. 5. v. 14) that 
" Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped the an- 
gel." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " peo- 
ple ought not to be seduced by that example of Joshua, for 
our ministers affirm, in their confession of faith, (c. 21,) that 
1 we ought not, by any means, to give religious worship either 
to angels or to saints.' " Truly, brother, I am greatly surprised 
that your ministers can have the impudence to assert this doc- 
trine ; whereas the angel was not then only willing to permit this 
honor given him by Joshua, but also commanded him to rev- 
erence the ground that was sanctified by the angel's presence. 
" Loose," said he, " thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place 
whereon thou standest is holy." (v. 15.) Surely you cannot 
pretend to say that this kind of worship (paid by such a holy 
man as Joshua, and permitted by the angel) is latria or di- 
vine, seeing the angel, when he first appeared, told Joshua 
that he was but a prince of the host of the Lord ; and if you 
reply that we may adore angels, with religious worship, as 
Joshua did, but not saints, behold how the word of God testi- 
fies that, this kind of worship is given to those who are emi- 
nent for sanctity in this world ; for Abdias, governor of the 
house of Achab, king of Israel, meeting with poor Elias the 
prophet, " when he knew him, he fell on his face, and said, 
Art thou my lord Elias?" 1 Kings, c. 18, v, 7. And the 
children of the prophets, seeing Eliseus, said, The spirit of Elias 
hath rested upon Eliseus; and coming to meet him, they 
worshipped him, falling to the ground, or, as your ministers 
translate, " they bowed themselves to the ground before him," 



118 

2 Kings, c. 2, v. 15. You see, therefore, by clear Scripture, 
that it was not through any worldly respect, but merely on ac- 
count of spiritual excellence, that those people worshipped the 
aforesaid holy men ; and consequently you ought to confess 
that this kind of worship is not that of civil honor, which is 
due to men of human dignity ; neither can you say that it was 
a divine worship, because the kind of worship which we call 
lairia requires that the act of the understanding (wherewith 
we apprehend the excellency of the object) should be immedi- 
ately referred to an infinite excellence which happens in the 
worship of God alone, but could not then happen; for the 
Scripture says, in the last example, that they bowed to Eliseus, 
" because the spirit of Elias had rested upon him." There- 
fore that worship must be only religious that is given on ac- 
count of his spritiial excellence ; but this spiritual excellence 
is incomparably more eminent in those who are now made co- 
heirs with Christ himself in participating in all heavenly gifts 
and glory ; to them therefore religious bowing or worship is 
due, and we are commanded by St. Paul " to render to all 
their due, to whom honor, honor ; owe to no man any thing." 
Rom. c, 13, v. 7, 8. Behold a precept, for which you often 
ask, when you desire me to show you a command, which bids 
us to honor angels or saints. 

2. I know you will say that the angel " desired St. 
John not to worship himself, but to worship God." Rev. 
c. 19, v, 10, c. 22, v. 8, 9. To which I answer, that St. John 
then twice worshipped the angel, (as you may see by these 
texts, which, as you pretend, favor false opinions;) but if the 
first adoration had been of its own nature idolatrous and sin- 
ful, surely St. John would never the second time have com- 
mitted that idolatrous, damnable, and sinful act, both know- 
ingly and willingly ; and this so very soon after he had been 
warned by the angel not to do it. It was not therefore by 
reason of any unlawfulness in the action, that the angel 
willed him not to worship himself, but the angel refused, at 
both times, this honor, through his singular respect for St. 
John, whom he knew to have been at the last supper, per- 



119 

mitted to recline on our Savior's breast. St. John, c. 21, v. 20. 
And so he would not permit him to lie now prostrate at his 
own feet, whom he knew also to be highly favored by God 
with so many admirable heavenly visions ; moreover to be a 
virgin, a priest, an apostle, a prophet, an evangelist, and that 
very disciple whom Christ so singularly loved. John, c. 21, 
v. 20. Therefore he would not admit of such a profound 
respect at his hands, but humbly said unto him, " I am thy 
fellow-servant." Behold how the angel respected him ; yet 
St. John's humility working still upon himself more, by 
seeinc an angel so humble, and knowing what Christ had 
said before, viz., that " even the least in the kingdom of 
heaven was greater than the great John Baptist," (Matt. 
c. 11, v. 11,) — to wit, according to the present state, — he 
therefore conceived meanly of himself; not only the first but 
also the second time showed to the angel that honor which he 
knew to be due to him. The truth of what I say here may 
be confirmed by the example of Joshua, who, after worship- 
ping the angel, was bid to honor him more, by reverencing 
the place whereon he stood. But why need I go so far to 
show you an example? Whereas it is said to the angel of 
Philadelphia, " Behold, I will make them come and adore 
before thy feet." Rev. c. 3, v. 9. Do you think, brother, that 
God would cause those people to worship this angel, if that 
kind of worship had been in itself both sinful and idolatrous, 
as you imagine 1 And if you say that by this angel the 
bishop of Philadelphia is understood, then you must confess 
that it is lawful for us to worship before the feet of the chief 
bishdp of the Church ; and consequently you must acknowl- 
edge your own error in censuring us for practising this ; 
but if you confess that by these words the angel is under- 
stood, then you ought consequently to acknowledge what I 
told you here to be true. 

3. I answer, that other text, which you pretend favors your 
false doctrine, and do say that St. John understood the 
meaning of St. Paul's words (Colos. c. 2, v. 18) far better, 
or, at least, full as well as your ministers; yet we see by 



120 

Scripture, that long after St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the 
Colossi ans, St. John wrote his Revelation in the Island of 
Patmos, and it was then he twice worshipped the angel ; we, 
therefore, are no more guilty of sin in worshipping angels, 
than St. John was ; and in whatever sense St. Paul is to be 
understood, he cannot be rightly understood in a sense for- 
bidding any thing contrary to that which St. John did, and 
which we with him may lawfully practise. But that you may 
hereafter fully know the true sense of St. Paul's words in the 
aforesaid text, you must first know the doctrine that was 
taught in those times by the enemies of Christ's church ; and 
hence I say, that one Simon Magus taught then that sacri- 
fice ought to be offered to all angels, as well to evil as to 
good, as Epiphanius relates, Heres. c. 25, and St. Chrysos- 
tom, Horn. 7. On that same text of St. Paul, and some of 
the new converted Jews did also then teach (as Tertullian 
writes, lib. 5, cont. Marcionem) that Christians ought to retain 
the old judicial law, through respect to the angel, by whose 
ministry it was first delivered to them. Acts, c. 7, v. 3. Nay, 
to persevere in that error, some of them gave out that " they 
had received this as a heavenly verity revealed to them by 
angels, in dreams and visions ; " but the revealers could only 
be angels of darkness ; and hence St. Paul calls their doc- 
trine "doctrines of devils" Tim. c. 4, v. 1, &,c. St. Paul, 
therefore, seeing that the church of Christ was thus attacked 
on the one side by Simon Magus's error, and on the other 
by the false pretence of those foolish Jews, had great reason 
to write to the Colossians, desiring them not to be beguiled 
in worshipping angels, by any persuasion of either of- those 
heretics; so that you may hereby perceive that we teach 
nothing contrary to that text of St. Paul ; nay, we are so far 
from that temerity, that we have long since condemned the 
old dregs of Simon Magus's heresy in the council of Laodi- 
cea. c. 35. Having now answered your chief objections 
against this doctrine of the Catholic Church, I shall only 
beg of you this request, viz., that you would be pleased to 
urge your ministers to show you authentically which of the 



121 

holy fathers ever interpreted any of the former texts of St. John 
and St. Paul, in that sense in which they interpret them now- 
a-days. Truly, all the diligence they can employ in searching 
out that will never be able to give you a proper solution to 
this request. Hence it follows, that you are blindly guided 
by their conduct in this matter. 

4. Whereas Christ says (Luke, c. 15, v. 7, 10) that "there 
shall be joy in heaven before the angels of God, upon one sin- 
ner doing penance." " No, no," say the Protestant and Pres- 
byterian, " there can be no joy in heaven for the sinner's con- 
version, because we are told by our learned ministers that the 
angels and saints departed are at such a great distance now 
from us in this life, that they know not what we do here." 
Indeed, brother, your doctrine is quite contrary to the word 
of God, as you may see not only by the former but also by 
the following text : " And an angel of God called to Agar 
from heaven, (behold the long distance,) saying, What art 
thou doing, Agar? Fear not, for God hath heard the voice 
of the boy." Gen. c. 21, v. 17. "And an angel of the Lord 
from heaven called to him, (behold again the long distance,) 
saying, Abraham, Abraham, lay not thy hand upon the 
boy," &c. Gen. c. 22, v. 11, 12. " The angel of the Lord 
answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have 
mercy on Jerusalem, and the cities of Juda, with which thou 
hast been angry? This is now the seventieth year." Zach- 
arias, c. 1, v. 12. " When thou didst pray with tears, and 
didst bury the dead by night, I offered thy prayer to the 
Lord," saith the angel Raphael to Tobias. Tob. c. 12, v. 12. 
If you say that this last text is not canonical Scripture, I give 
you that answer which I gave, sect. 19, No. 2 ; for surely you 
will not deny the book of Tobias to be an ancient ecclesiasti- 
cal history, which relates the very same doctrine that is 
affirmed by several clear texts of canonical Scripture. 

5. Your only and chief text is that of Isaias, saying, 
" Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath been igno- 
rant of us : thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer." 
Isa. c. 63, v. 16. To which I answer, first, I desire you to 

11 



122 

mention which of the holy fathers, in their commentaries on 
this text, ever interpreted it in the same sense in which your 
ministers interpret it now-a-days. Secondly, I say that this 
text proves nothing against our doctrine; and you may know 
the truth of this, if you attentively consider what the prophet 
tells you here from the ninth to the sixteenth verse, (he de- 
clares how enormously the Jews had swerved from the life, 
example, and instruction of their predecessors,) whereby you 
may perceive that he had great reason to fear that Abraham 
and Jacob would not then look upon them as their children, 
(as the word know signifies,) but would say to them, " We 
know you not," as Christ will say on the day of judgment to 
the reprobate. The prophet, therefore, fearing that he would 
get this repulse at their hands, hence he immediately re- 
curred to the fountain of all goodness, whose mercy he knew 
to be greater than that of the greatest saints, and told him, 
with great submission, that Abraham and Jacob had seemed 
to cease from interceding for them any longer, because they 
degenerated so much from their lives and documents ; hence 
you see that this kind of expression (which is conformable to 
the holy fathers' interpretations upon the aforesaid text) doth 
not affirm that Abraham and Jacob knew not after their death 
what had passed among the Je.ws. Pray consider how well 
Abraham could tell the rich man that " his five brothers had 
Moses and the prophets." Luke, c. 16, v. 29. Did not Mo- 
ses and the prophets live many years after Abraham was 
dead 1 And yet you see (by Scripture) that Abraham knew 
that there were men who left such books to the Jews, and 
he knew that those books were then extant, and that their 
writings were of no less efficacy to convert the rich man's 
five brothers, than the preaching of a man risen from the 
dead would have been. If you say that this is a parable, I 
answer, that in parables the interlocutors must be made to 
speak sense, and not nonsense ; and if you give no credit to 
what a parable says, why do you give credit to your ministers, 
who do pretend to prove against us, (in your confession of 
faith, p. 62, and in your Catechism against Popery, p. 33,) 



123 

that there is no purgatory, by this very same parable. But 
since the falsehood of their assertion is sufficiently confuted 
by what I have proved to you in the last section, hence I 
will now proceed in order to show you the truth of the Cath- 
olic doctrine concerning the present point, which might be 
sufficiently proved by what we read in the second book of 
Chronicles, (c. 21, v. 12,) where it is said that Elias had 
sent a letter to Joram, telling him of many particular wicked 
actions which he had committed after Elias was translated. 
Elias, therefore, being departed, knew what passed in the 
world, and showed his great care to assist his brethren in this 
life. His own departure happened the eighteenth year of King 
Josaphat's reign, (2 Kings, c. 2, v. 11,) and Josaphat reigned 
five-and-twenty years, as it is manifest, 2 Chronicles, c. 20, 
v. 31. So that seven years of Josaphat's reign elapsed after 
the departure of Elias; then this Joram's son reigned after 
Josaphat, (2 Chron. c. 21, v. 1,) and it was to him that this 
letter came from Elias. 

6. You may also see, by several examples taken from 
Scripture, how saints living even in this world could know 
and tell many things which were secretly done by others; 
for Samuel said thus to Saul : " I will tell thee all that is in 
thy heart," (1 Samuel, c. 9, v. 19 ;) and Eliseus told Giezi what 
he had committed privately. 2 Kings, c. 5, v. 26. The same 
Eliseus knew also what was said in the king of Syria's private 
chamber, (2 Kings, c. 6, v. 12,) and St. Peter knew the 
deceitful heart of Ananias, and said unto him, " Why hast 
thou conceived this thing in thy heart? " (Acts, c. 5, v. 4;) 
by which you see that some saints even in this world, and 
other saints after their departure from it, most certainly knew 
their brethren's actions. Why, then, do you deny this knowl- 
edge to the same saints now present with God, and enlight- 
ened with the light of beatific glory, which elevates and cor- 
roborates the understanding to a wonderful perfection in 
knowledge ? Do you think that the saints, raised by God to 
such a degree of sublimity, have not now a more perfect knowl- 
edge of what we do in this world than they had before they 



124 

were so elevated to that glory and perfection? Indeed, if 
God had deprived them in heaven of such knowledge, he 
would not have said, " He that shall overcome and keep my 
works unto the end, to him I will give power over the nations, 
and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and as the vessel 
of a potter, they (who slight them) shall be broken." Rev. 
c. 2, v. 26, &c. Is he not a blind ruler over nations, who 
knows not what passes in the spiritual affairs of nations, 
which are the affairs that belong to his ruling power ? Is it 
not said of the devil, that " he accuseth our brethren day and 
night?" (Rev. c. 12, v. 10 ;) which he cannot do unless he first 
knows in what to accuse us. Is it not, then, a great shame 
for you to deny, in opposition to the word of God, such 
knowledge to the angels and saints, now in heavenly glory ? 
whereas you grant that the very devils in hell, and the damned 
souls in eternal flames, possess it. Luke, c. 16, v. 23. 

7. Whereas the Scripture says (Hos. c. 12, v. 4) that 
" Jacob wept, and made supplication to the angel." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " Jacob made then 
no supplication to the angel, but to God, as our Catechism 
against Popery declares, p. 29." Truly, brother, that is not 
what the text here declares, but quite the contrary, saying, 
that " Jacob made supplication to the angel, and that he had 
prevailed against him in wrestling ; " and we read in Gen- 
esis (c. 48, v. 15, &c.) that " he first called upon God, and 
afterwards upon his good angel, in order to help and bless 
the children of Joseph; and he declares that this angel de- 
livered him from several evils. I have shown, in paragraph 
No. 4, another example from Zacharias, which affirms that 
the angel made supplication to the Lord, beseeching him to 
have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Juda ; and 
the prophet says in that chapter, (v. 13,) that "the Lord 
answered the angel with good and comfortable words." 
Daniel tells you what assistance Michael the angel had given 
to himself. " None," saith he, " is my helper in these things, 
but Michael, your prince." Dan. c. 10, v. 21. And he 
also says thus : " At that time shall Michael rise up, the great 



125 

prince, who standeth for the children of thy peopje." Dan. 
c. 12, v. 1. Pray, brother, inquire of your learned ministers, 
to what purpose does Michael stand up for God's people, if 
he does not as much as pray for them, or offer their prayers 
to God, according to that of St. John, " I saw the angels 
standing in the presence of God, and to them were given 
seven trumpets ; and another angel came and stood before the 
altar, having a golden censer ; and there was given to him 
much incense, that he should offer the prayers of all the 
saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of 
God ; and the smoke of the incense from the hand of the 
angel is the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God." 
Rev. c. 8, v. 2, foe. You see, by these words of clear 
Scripture, that the angel, who stood before the throne of God, 
had such long ears (at which you often laugh) that he could 
hear the prayers of the saints on earth, and not only heard 
them, but also " offered them up before the throne of God in 
a golden censer." And do you not think that the prayers 
of those saints became more acceptable to God by being 
thus jointly offered to him from the hands of the angel 1 For 
you see, by the text, that the smoke of the incense ascended 
with them from the hand of the angel, by which they must 
have been rendered more acceptable to God. 

8. Whereas the Scripture says (Exod. c. 32, v. 12, 13) 
that " Moses spoke to the Lord, saying, Let thy anger 
cease, and be appeased upon the wickedness of thy people. 
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants." " No, 
no, Moses," say the ^rotestant and Presbyterian, " you ought 
not to beg pardon of God on account of the merits of those 
saints that were dead ; for our ministers tell us that we can 
receive no benefit now by the intercession of any saint that 
left this world." And hence our Mr. Fulke says, (in his Re- 
joinder to Bristow, p. 5,) that " Ambrose, Augustin, and 
Jerom, erred in holding the invocation of saints to be law- 
ful." Indeed, brother, it plainly appears, by this accusation 
of your own Mr. Fulke, that those holy fathers of the primi- 
tive church were neither Protestants nor Presbyterians, but 
11 * 



126 

Roman Catholics. As for what you allege against the pres- 
ent text, its falsity is sufficiently proved by the next verse, 
which says, that "the Lord appeased from the evil which 
he had spoken against his people." Whereby you see that, 
by the merits of those who were dead, God was pleased to 
pardon their friends in this world ; and of this you have sev- 
eral other examples in Scripture. Would not Solomon's 
kingdom be given to his own servants, if it had not been for 
the sake of David, then dead? 1 Kings, c. 11, v. 11, 12. 
Was it not also on account of David's merit, then dead, 
Abias obtained that his son Asa reigned in Jerusalem 1 as 
you may see in the same book, c. 15, v. 4. And would not 
the city of Jerusalem have been destroyed by the Assyrians, 
were it not on account of David's good works ? 2 Kings, 
c. 19, v. 32, &c, c. 20, v. 6. Where did you ever read in 
Scripture, that there was any promise made to David, before 
he left this world, of protecting that city on his account ? If 
there had been any such promise made to him, surely the 
city would not be ruined in the captivity ; you see, therefore, 
by clear Scripture, that it is a great happiness for one in this 
world to have a faithful friend and patron, in great favor and 
credit with God, by whose merit and intercession he may 
obtain several benefits which otherwise would not be granted 
him, as the former examples do plainly show; and this is 
further illustrated by the following text, which says, " Then 
said the Lord to me, If Moses and Samuel shall stand before 
me, my soul is not towards this people." Jer. c. 15, v. 1. It 
evidently appears by this expression, that Moses and Samuel 
(then dead) were accustomed, after their death, to intercede 
for these people, and that their intercession was most power- 
ful and acceptable before God. You have such another text 
in Ezekiel, c. 14, v. 17, &,c. And Eliphaz, seeing holy Job's 
great affliction, said thus to him : " Call now, if there be any 
that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints." Job, 
c. 5, v. 1. Does not this mode of expression clearly show 
that Job used to ask the assistance of saints that were dead ? 
9. Judas Machabeus (2 Mach. c. 15, v. 12, 13, &c.) tells 



127 

us that he saw (in an admirable vision) Onias the high priest 
and Jeremiah the prophet (long after their death) earnestly 
interceding to God for the people of Israel ; and if you say 
that this book is not canonical, I refer you to what I told you, 
sect. 19, No. 2. And the truth thereof is evident, by a sim- 
ilar vision which St. John saw, of which he gives this testi- 
mony, saying, " And when he had opened the book, the 
four living creatures and the four-and-twenty ancients fell 
down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and 
golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the 
saints." Rev. c. 5, v. 8. You see, then, by canonical Scrip- 
ture, how these saints in heaven knew and heard the prayers 
of the saints on earth, which they, with that great solemnity, 
presented " to the Lamb, in golden vials." It is most certain 
that God knoweth all our prayers before the saints or angels 
offer them; but he knows that they ascend with less efficacy 
when they are not seconded by the intercession of the angels 
or saints. So God knew beforehand that all the people 
answered Moses, saying to him, " All that the Lord hath 
spoken we will do." Exod. c. 19, v. 8. And the very next 
words are, that " Moses told the words of the people to the 
Lord," which words were well known to God before Moses 
had mentioned them; yet, by mentioning them, he made (by 
his joint mediation) this cheerful offer of the people more 
pleasing to God ; and because he did this to their great ad- 
vantage, Moses tells them again, " I stood between the Lord 
and you at that time." Deut. c. 5, v. 5. You may see 
another example of this kind of mediation in the book of Job, 
where God spoke thus to Job's three friends : " My wrath is 
kindled against thee ; take therefore unto you seven oxen, and 
seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves 
a holocaust, and my servant Job shall pray for you ; his face 
I will accept." Job, c. 42, v. 7, &C You may understand 
by these words, that Christ is a more powerful mediator than 
Moses, Job, or any other creature can be, because Christ is 
a mediator by his own personal merits, who fully satisfied 
God's anger, and is therefore susceptible of no repulse ; and 



128 

it is in this sense St. Paul calls him " the Mediator of God 
and men." 1 Tim. c. 2, v. 5. But the name of a mediator, 
in that sense wherein Moses, Job, and other saints and 
angels are called mediators, implies no more than that such 
a mediator should stand between God and him for whom he 
intercedes or mediates. 

10. Whence it follows that there are two ways of ap- 
proaching our Savior Jesus Christ : the first is immediately, 
by ourselves approaching reverently in prayers to him ; the 
second is when we, humbly acknowledging our own unwor- 
thiness, procure the intercession of Christ's greatest friends, 
to accompany with their joint mediation our humble petitions 
to him, which manner of proceeding is no dishonor, but 
rather an honor to Christ ; for by this we show that his merits 
are so great, that by them the saints are advanced to such 
great favor with God in heaven, that their prayers and inter- 
cessions become as effectual there as they were even in this 
world, in which some of them obtained several requests 
and pardons for their brethren. Neither do we, by humble 
way of praying, act against that precept of Christ, saying, 
" Come to me, all ye," (Matt. c. 11, v. 28,) any more than St. 
Paul acted against it; for after Christ spoke these words, he 
desired the Thessalonians to mediate for him with God, in 
these words : " Brethren, pray for us." 1 Thess. c. 5, v. 25. 
He bids also the Hebrews " to pray for him," (Heb. c. 13, 
v. 18,) and says thus to the Romans : " I beseech you, brethren, 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the 
Holy Ghost, that you assist me in your prayers for me to 
God." Rom. c. 15, v. 30. If this way of praying, which was 
practised by St. Paul, be not injurious to Christ, or against 
his precept, I know not by what reason or authority your 
ministers can allege that we do any thing, in this matter, for 
which we have not the authority of God's word ; whereas 
they were never able to produce any one clear text of Scrip- 
ture, whereby their allegation herein could be proved ; so 
that all the ground upon which they rely, in this matter, is 
only their own fancies, which sometimes cause them to 



129 

inquire of us, where have we a command for this doctrine. 
But I ask of them, where is there any text in Scripture which 
prohibits it? For their greatest pretence of just separation 
from us is, that they were forced thereto from such errors as 
they could manifestly by Scripture clearly demonstrate to be 
damnable ; but in searching out these points, wherein they 
differ from us, I find the matter to be quite contrary ; for I 
find that they have forsaken the Scripture, inasmuch as 
they have forsaken our communion. 

Objections answered. 

But pray, brother, how can you know that those are real 
saints to whom you pray ? for we know that the pope has can- 
onized many wicked men. As to your first question, we 
may have a moral certainty or a prudent conviction of it, 
which suffices. To your second I give this short answer : 
That it must be a very bad cause which cannot be supported 
without slander. 

To pray to saints is idolatrous ; therefore you are daily 
guilty of idolatry. I answer, 1. Then all those great and 
holy men of the primitive ages, just now reckoned up by 
Mr. Thorndike, were idolaters; which is strange news indeed, 
but it wants confirmation. I answer, 2. If desiring a part in 
the prayers of saints in heaven be idolatrous, then surely 
desiring the prayers of sinful men upon earth is still a worse 
sort of idolatry. And so all members of the Church of 
England, who recommend themselves to one another's 
prayers, are guilty of a grosser idolatry than what Papists 
are accused of. 

It has no warrant from the word of God, but is forbidden, 
which we prove from the following text. " Him only shalt 
thou serve." Matt. c. 4, v. 10. Here, poor gentlemen, you are 
so hard put to it for a text, that I am really in pain for you. 
For is not this a most admirable consequence, " Christ said 
to Satan, Him only shalt thou serve ; " therefore the Scripture 
forbids us to desire the prayers of saints and angels ? I shall 



130 

make bold to infer another consequence full as good, viz., 
therefore the Scripture forbids us to desire the prayers of 
one another. But a man must have very bad eyes, who can 
see no difference between begging a share in a man's prayers 
and paying divine worship to him. 

As to what you say, that we have no warrant from the 
word of God for it, I have already showed the contrary. 
However, I should be glad to know what warrant the Church 
of England has from the word of God for keeping one holy 
day for all the saints in general, and another for St. Michael 
and all the angels. 

You tell us, 4thly, that the angels refuse to be prayed to ; 
and for this you quote Rev. c. 22, v. 9. But this text has no 
more relation to the subject in question than to the building 
of the tower of Babel. 

The saints cannot hear our prayers ; which we prove from 
Isa. c. 63, v. 16 : " Abraham is ignorant of us." How this 
text is put upon the rack to make it speak in favor of a 
blunder ! For in the days of Isaiah there were no saints in 
heaven, because mankind was not yet redeemed. I answer, 
therefore, that the true meaning of Isaiah (according to St. 
Jerom) is, that Abraham will not own wicked Israelites to be 
his children, (Jer. in c. 63, Isa.,) in which sense our Savior 
will say to the reprobate, " Verily I know you not." Matt, 
c. 25, v. 12. 

I answer again, that it is blasphemy to say that God can- 
not make our prayers known to the saints ; so is it a ground- 
less and precarious guess to say he does not do it. For why 
should the saints be kept in ignorance of what passes in this 
world any more than the angels, of whom it is said that 
" they rejoice over a sinner that repenteth " ? (Luke, c. 15, 
v. 7;) which therefore they must certainly know. 

Lastly, it is injurious to the mediation of Christ ; which we 
prove from 1 Tim. c. 2, v. 5 : (t There is one God, and one 
Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." 
And again, " If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous." 1 John, c. 2, v. 1. But 



I3J 

do you not see that, if desiring the prayers of saints be 
injurious to the mediatorship of Christ, then St. Paul was 
injurious to it, when he desired so often the prayers of his 
friends? Every one, therefore, that is but well instructed in 
his Catechism, knows that, though there be but one Mediator 
of redemption, (of which St. Paul speaks in the text quoted,) 
yet all that pray for us, may improperly be called mediators 
of prayer or intercession. I say improperly, because there 
is only one (to wit, Jesus Christ) who can have immediate 
access to God for us. And all others that pray for us, whether 
saints in heaven or men upon earth, must use the mediation 
of Christ, when they offer their prayers to God ; which fully 
answers the text from St. John. 

Hence Bishop Montague made no difficulty to write thus : 
" I do not deny (says he) but the saints are mediators, as 
they call them, of prayer and intercession. They interpose 
with God by their supplications, and mediate by their 
prayers ; " in Antid. p. 20. And again in his treatise of In- 
voc. p. 118, he writes thus: I own Christ is not wronged in 
his mediation : it is no impiety to say, (as Papists do,) Holy 
Mary, pray for us. 

But if any one asks what need there is to desire the saints 
to pray for us, since Christ's mediation is all-sufficient, I 
answer, it may as well be asked what need there is to pray 
for ourselves, or for one another. But as the satisfaction of 
Christ, though all-sufficient, must be applied to us by prayer 
and good works, so likewise his mediation. In effect, what- 
ever we beg of God, or others beg for us, we only hope to 
obtain it through the mediation of Jesus Christ; and the 
true reason that moves us to desire the saints to pray for us is 
the very same that moved St. Paul to desire the prayers of his 
absent friends, viz., that God may have the honor, and we 
the profit, of more prayers than our own. 

In a word, it is impossible to give a solid reason why de- 
siring the prayers of the saints in heaven is more injurious to 
Christ's mediatorship than the prayers of men upon earth. 
And I insist upon it, as a thing manifest to common sense, 



132 

that either both are lawful or both unlawful. If both be unlaw- 
ful, then Protestants are as guilty as Papists. But if both be 
lawful, then they who seduce the people by persuading them 
that our invocation of saints is both idolatrous and injurious to 
Christ's mediatorship, are guilty of a most grievous injustice, 
which they never can answer, either to God or man. 

I will end this subject with an objection, which I should 
really blush to answer seriously, were it not that I have found 
by experience that the generality of women and children are 
wonderfully affected with it. The objection is grounded 
upon these words of Christ : " Come unto me, all ye that labor 
and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matt. c. 11, 
v. 28. Whence they conclude, that, since Christ commands 
all to come to him, it is unlawful to have recourse to the 
prayers of saints and angels. This is the wretched argu- 
ment with which so many are misled. 

I answer, therefore, that the heart of a Christian, in all its 
prayers, speaks to God, and expects no blessings from him but 
through Jesus Christ. Nay, the very essence of prayer is a 
raising up of the heart and mind to God. We are then so 
far from violating the command of Christ by desiring to have 
the prayers of his saints joined with ours, that we may not 
only come to God ourselves, but wish that many more may do 
the same with us. 

Besides, if desiring the saints to pray for us be contrary to 
the command of Christ, desiring the faithful to pray for us 
is no less contrary to it. And therefore, as it would be absurd 
to charge Protestants with a breach of Christ's command for 
desiring their friends to pray for them, so it is no less absurd 
to charge us with a breach of Christ's command for desiring 
the saints to pray for us. 

[Forasmuch as I believe that our friends of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church have not gone so far on the road to 
Calvinism as to reject all veneration for the writings of the 
primitive fathers of the church, I beg leave to insert here, for 
their edification, a passage from St. Augustine, who, they ad- 
mit, was a learned doctor of the church, and well versed in the 



133 

belief and practice both of his own and of the preceding 
ages. It is taken out of his 20th book, cap. 21, contra 
Faust um 3fanichceum, who seemed to reproach the Christians 
much after the same manner as the Protestants are pleased to 
reproach the Roman Catholics, telling them they took away 
the idols indeed, but substituted the martyrs in their places ; 
to which this holy father returns an answer in these words : 
For as to the calumny cast on us by Faustus, because we hon- 
or the memory of the martyrs, saying, we have changed the 
idols into martyrs, I am not so much concerned to answer it 
as I am to show that Faustus himself has, out of a desire of 
calumniating, exceeded the follies of Manichceus. The Chris- 
tian people, indeed, do celebrate the memory of the martyrs 
with a religious solemnity, both to excite themselves to an imi- 
tation of the martyrs, to have a share in their merits, (mark 
these words,) and be assisted by their prayers. We wor- 
ship the martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship 
wherewith the holy men of God are worshipped in this life, 
whose hearts we perceive to be prepared to suffer the like pas- 
sion for the truth of the gospel. But the martyrs we worship 
so much the more devoutly, by how much we may do it with 
more security after their victory ; and by how much we may, 
with a more confident praise, extol them as victors in a happy 
life, than those as yet fighting in this. But with that wor- 
ship which in Greek is called Latreia, but in Latin cannot be 
expressed in one ivord, since it is a certain service properly 
due to the Divinity, we neither worship nor teach to be wor- 
shipped but one God. And whereas unto this worship apper- 
tains the oblation of a sacrifice, whence idolatry is said to be 
committed by those who exhibit it to idols, we do by no means 
offer any such, or command to be offered, either to any martyr, 
or to any holy soul, or to any angel; and whoever falls into 
this error, he is checked by wholesome doctrine, in order to be 
corrected or to be avoided. Now, I beg leave to ask the candid 
reader, whether St. Augustine doth not justify our practice, 
with respect to the worship we exhibit to martyrs and saints, 
in order to obtain for us assistance from God in our necessi- 
12 



134 

ties ; and whether St. Augustine was not a competent wit- 
ness of the practice of the whole Catholic Church of his 
time ; or whether he himself would not rather condemn such 
a practice, if he had not believed it to have been lawful, 
and the sense of the whole Catholic Church. And if it 
was good and orthodox when he lived, now over fourteen 
hundred years ago, why not so in our days ?] 



SECTION XXI. 

Of Images. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says, (Numb. c. 21, v. 8,) " The 
Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it up, 
and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when 
he looketh upon it, shall live." " No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " neither make nor regard such figures or 
images at all, or else you will be guilty of damnable idolatry, 
as all the Papists are." Truly, brother, your rash and un- 
charitable censure accuseth Moses to have been as much 
guilty of idolatry as the Papists are in this matter ; and you 
may see the truth hereof, by what the ninth verse of the 
aforesaid chapter declares, saying thus : " And Moses made 
a serpent of brass, and set it up, and it came to pass that if a 
serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of 
brass he recovered." You see then, by Scripture, what 
Moses had done ; and yet he was so far from being an idolater, 
that he did it in obedience to the command of God, who 
would not encourage any person to an act whereby he would 
commit idolatry. Nay, we see in the New Testament, (John, 
c. 3, v. 14,) that. Christ himself approves of the making and 
exalting of this serpent, and owns it to have been a type and 
figure of himself exalted upon the cross : since therefore 
Moses and the Jews neither sinned nor committed idolatry 



135 

then, in making, exalting, and venerating, this serpent of 
brass, prefiguring Christ's crucifixion, why should we now be 
called idolaters, by you, for making and venerating such im- 
ages as may put us in remembrance that this same Christ 
(there prefigured by that serpent) was crucified for our sins ? 
Truly, I see no disparity in the matter, but only that what 
they did was a sign of a thing which then was to come to 
pass, and that this which we do now is a sign of that very 
same thing which already came to pass ; but all this differ- 
ence makes not our veneration to be more sinful or idola- 
trous than their veneration, (which was expressly commanded 
by God,) for all the honor which we show before the picture 
resteth not in the picture itself, but passeth through it to the 
person which it represents, as may be seen by what the coun- 
cil of Trent declares, which says, " Due honor and venera- 
tion is to be given to the images of Christ, of the mother of 
God, and of the saints, not that there is believed to be in 
them any divinity or virtue, (mark well these words,) for which 
they are to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be asked of 
them, or that any confidence is to be placed in the images, 
(observe what follows,) as anciently was done by the Gentiles, 
who did put their hope in idols, (Psalm 115, v. 4, &,c.,) but 
because the honor which is given to the images is referred to 
the persons represented by the images ; so that by, or through, 
the images we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, 
or lie prostrate, we adore Christ and reverence the saints, 
whom these images represent." Sect. 25. 

2. You may now perceive, brother, by these words of the 
council, how unjustly your ministers do accuse us, and 
make you believe that the Papists are idolaters, by giving a 
divine honor to images, whereas we are as far from giving them 
such honor as they are ; for all the honor which we give them 
is only a relative veneration ; that is, that we have a respect 
for them, as they are apt instruments for moving us to think 
and consider of Christ's sufferings, and of the good life of 
those saints whose images we use to respect : so that we have 
no more honor or respect for the image in itself (pretending 



136 

from the relation) than we have for a lump of clay, or as 
much more of the same stuff of which the image is made ; 
and if your ministers will tell you that we ought not to give 
such a relative veneration before insensible creatures, let them 
know that the word of God relates with what great respect 
the ark was honored, though it was insensible, by reason of 
the relation which it had to God, in regard that from thence 
he gave his oracle to the priests ; and hence it is said that 
" Michal saw David dancing before the Lord," (2 Sam. 
c. 6, v. 16,) because she saw him dancing before the ark ; so 
that in this sense, when David kneeled or adored before the 
ark, he might be said to have kneeled or adored before our 
Lord, and thus because the ark had the afore-mentioned rela- 
tion to the Lord ; even so, when we kneel before any image 
of our blessed Lady, or other saint, we may be likewise said 
to have kneeled before our blessed Lady, or before such a 
saint, for this manner of speaking, which you account to be 
ridiculous and superstitious, is, as you see, the very phrase 
of Scripture in like occasion. Yea, adoration itself was used 
before the ark ; for David says thus : " Worship at his foot- 
stool ; for he is holy." Psalm 99, v. 5. By this footstool the 
ark is understood, as is evident from the first book of Chron- 
icles, (c. 28, v. 2;) and observe that the reason why this wor- 
ship ought to be made at the ark, is the relation which it had 
to him whose footstool it was ; and hence the Scripture says 
thus, " For he is holy ; " that is, for it is the ark of Him who 
deserves that worship should be done even at his footstool. 
You have such another example in the New Testament, where 
we read that St. John Baptist said thus of Christ : " He who 
cometh after me is preferred before me, the latchet of whose 
shoes I am not worthy to unloose." John, c. 1, v. 27. Pray 
tell me, why had St. John Baptist this great respect for Christ's 
shoes 1 Was it for any sanctity that was in them 1 Truly no, 
but precisely by reason of the relation which they had to 
Christ, because they were his shoes ; even so it is with us ; 
for when we honor images, we honor them not for any sanc- 
tity that we believe to be in themselves, but precisely for the 



137 

relation which they have to those whose images they are, and 
do deserve that honor which we testify by those exterior 
actions of bowing, kneeling, &,c. 

3. And if we commit idolatry by having this relative 
veneration for images, I know not how your ministers can 
excuse themselves and their flocks from committing idolatry ; 
for on the one hand they believe the sacrament of the Lord's 
supper to be only a sign or figure of Christ's body, and on the 
other they uncover their heads, and sometimes kneel before 
the sacrament, at the receiving of it. If, therefore, such un- 
covering of heads, and kneeling before such insensible signs 
and figures, be no idolatry in you or in your ministers, I 
know no reason why the like actions should be accounted 
idolatry in us ; for the very same thing which excuses you 
from being idolaters, excuses us also ; because all the excuse 
you can allege in your own defence is, that you do not give 
that reverence to those bare signs in themselves, but to the 
person or thing which they represent ; and we likewise pro- 
test and declare, in the presence of God, that we give no more 
honor than that to the image of Christ ; and yet you proclaim 
that we are idolaters in doing so; nay, that which presses 
most is what St. Paul declares, " Whosoever shall eat this 
bread, or drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be 
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 1 Cor. c. 11, 
v. 27. Now, of being thus guilty of Christ's body and blood, 
it is impossible for you to give any other reason, but that the 
abusing of the sign or figure of Christ's body is a high abuse 
given to the body itself, by reason of the relation which these 
signs bear to it : you see, therefore, by this, how much you 
stand in your own light, and how uncharitably and falsely 
your ministers accuse us in this matter. 

4. Whereas the Scripture says that the Lord spoke unto 
Moses, saying, (Exod. c. 25, v. 18, &>c.,) " Thou shalt make 
two churubims of gold, of beaten work ; thou shalt make 
them in the two ends of the mercy-seat, and make one cher- 
ubim on the one end, and the other cherubim on the other end ; 
and the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, cov- 

8* 



138 

ering the mercy-seat with their wings, and their faces shall 
look one to another; towards the mercy-seat shall the faces of 
the cherubims be." " No, no, Moses," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, " you ought not to put up such images in the holy 
house at all ; and hence we have burnt and broken in pieces all 
the images that we got in those polluted churches which we 
took from the Papists at the beginning of our reformation ; and 
we shall put up no more images in them, lest we should be 
guilty of idolatry, as the Papists are." Indeed, brother, though 
those of your religion were guilty of this temerity in the be- 
ginning of their deformation, yet they had neither command 
nor example for it in the word of God ; nay, we find there sev- 
eral examples to the contrary, for the command that Moses 
received from God in the aforesaid text was fully executed by 
him, as may be seen in the same book, c. 37, v. 8, &>c. And 

hence St. Paul says thus: "There was a tabernacle 

and over it were the cherubims of glory, shadowing the mer- 
cy-seat." Heb. c. 9, v. 2, &c. And when this tabernacle 
was placed in the temple of God, the temple itself had cheru- 
bims graven on the walls, as is evident from the second book 
of Chronicles, c. 3, v. 7, &c, where it is said that " in the holy 
house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid 
them with gold, and their faces were toward the house ; he 
made the veil of blue and purple crimson, and wrought in 
cherubims. And all the people kneeled immediately before 
these pictures, and adored towards them, when they prayed 
in the temple." " Whereby you may perceive how impiously 
and disorderly you went to work in the beginning of your de- 
formation, by throwing all the images out of the churches ; 
whereas you now see, by clear Scripture, that God himself 
gave a command for making and placing them in his holy 
temple, notwithstanding he knew that the Jews were most 
prone to idolatry ; but it seems, by your conduct, that you 
pretend to know now what ought to be done in this matter 
better than God himself, because what he had then com- 
manded to be set up in churches, you have now ordered the 
same to be thrown down, and cast out of churches. The infer- 



139 

ence I leave to the consideration of any impartial and consci- 
entious judge. 

5. Whereas the prophet (Hosea, c. 3, v. 4) laments the 
desolation of the temple, saying, " For the children of 
Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a 
prince, and without a sacrifice, and without theraphim, and 
without images." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presby- 
terian, " the prophet was much in the wrong for bewailing the 
absence of these things, since our learned ministers rejoice 
and glory for beheading and banishing our lawful kings and 
princes, and expelling sacrifices and images out of all our 
churches." Truly, brother, if those of your church were 
right in doing these things, I acknowledge that the prophet 
was much in the wrong for lamenting the want of them ; but 

DO ' 

if the prophet was in the right, it plainly follows that you 
were much in the wrong ; and if the putting up of the 
angels' pictures in churches was not contrary to the deca- 
logue in the law of Moses, I see neither reason nor Scripture 
to prove their unlawfulness, or that they are contrary to the 
decalogue in the law of grace ; why, then, do you now attempt 
to hinder us to make use of images ? for you ought to know 
that their presence restrains our wandering thoughts ; they 
may reflect on Christ's passion, and the extraordinary virtues 
and lives of the saints: you know the Scripture teacheth that 
our weakness and dulness are much excited to piety by look- 
ing on these external signs ; hence it says that " the Lord 
spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders 
of their garments — and it shall be to you for a fringe, that 
ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments 
of the Lord." Num. c. 15, v. 37, &,c. Those fringes are 
the phylacteries mentioned by St. Matthew, c. 23, v. 5. You 
see, therefore, by clear Scripture, that the people of God had 
received command in the old law, in order to assist their 
memory, and oblige them to keep the commandments, which 
also they were commanded to write on the posts of their 
houses, and on the gates. Deut. c. 6, v. 9. Why, then, 



140 

should you attempt to hinder us to assist our memories by the 
view of these other external signs, which were designed pur- 
posely for that end? Do you not hear how St. Paul tells us 
that " God hath given him a name which is above all names; 
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow " 1 Philip. 
c. 2, v. 9, &lc. If, therefore, every knee ought to bow at 
hearing the name of Jesus, because it is a sign which repre- 
sents Christ to our ears, why should not also every knee 
kneel at seeing the crucifix, which is a sign that represents 
in a more lively manner the very same Christ crucified to 
our eyes ? for as the honor given to the name Jesus redounds 
to the person of Christ, so likewise the honor given to the 
crucifix redounds to the very same person of Christ, as I 
observed before, No. 1, 2, 3. 

6. But you will say that the use of images is contrary to 
this commandment : " Thou shalt not make to thee a graven 
thing, (you translate image,) nor any similitude," (Exod. c. 20, 
v. 4;) to which I answer, that the text speaks of idols, which 
are worshipped as Gods, as you may see from the very next 
verse, which speaks thus of the things that are here prohib- 
ited : " Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve 
them." We pay no such worship to images, which we hold 
to be wholly incapable of being served by us in the manner 
the idols were served by the Gentiles, and some Jews in 
former times, as I told you in the beginning of this sec- 
tion ; and indeed, if God had forbidden, by this text, the use 
of images, he would not immediately after, in the same book, 
(c. 25, v. 18, &/C.,) command Moses to make the images of the 
cherubims, in order to be placed in the ark, before whose 
presence idols could not stand, as we see by Dagon (1 Sam. 
c. 5, v. 3, &,c.) so often cast down before it ; neither would 
Solomon place images round about the walls of God's tem- 
ple. 2 Chron. c. 3, v. 7. So that it manifestly appears how 
falsely your ministers apply what is spoken in Scripture 
against idols to the images of angels, Christ, and the saints. 
They also falsely translated this text ; and this purposely, that 
they might make the ignorant sort of people believe that we 



Ill 

are idolaters. The truth of this is also evident ; for the Sep- 
tuagint, which they pretend to follow, hath the word Eidolon, 
that is, idols, and the Hebrew text hath the word Pcscl, which 
word only signifies a. graven thing; yet they deceitfully trans- 
late this word as if it had really signified a graven image. 

7. Your other chief objection is, that we commit idolatry in 
worshipping, through the image, the person it represents ; as 
the Israelites committed idolatry, (in worshipping the God of 
Israel, as you say, through the molten calf;) to which objec- 
tion I answer, that the Israelites did not then worship the true 
God through the calf; and you may clearly perceive the truth 
of this from the chapter you produce against us ; for you see 
there how the people desired "Aaron to make them gods, 
which should go before them," (Exod. c. 32, v. 1, &.c. ;) and 
Aaron knowing that they meant such gods as they had seen 
worshipped by the Egyptians, he therefore made them a 
golden calf, which was the god of Egypt, called Apis, or Sera- 
pis , and to this they offered sacrifice and worshipped it, as 
God himself declares, saying thus to Moses, (in that chapter, 
v. 8 :) " They have made them a molten calf, and have wor- 
shipped it, and sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy 
gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land 
of Egypt." Take notice how God himself declares, by these 
former words, that they sacrificed to the very calf, and attrib- 
uted their delivery out of Egypt to the Egyptian gods, and 
hence said, that " they had turned aside quickly out of the way 
which he had commanded them," and that you see with what 
grounds, I answer thus : observe yourself what Moses says, 
speaking of this same act of idolatry : they provoked (saith 
he) " him to jealousy with strange gods." Deut. c. 32, v. 16. 
The God of Israel could not be to them a strange God ; and 
the next words are, (v. 17,) they sacrificed unto devils, not to 
God ; and yet you have the rashness to say, that then they 
sacrificed to the true God through that calf; which is also 
contrary to the following words : " They sacrificed to gods 
whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up. 
v. 17. Surely these gods could not be the God of Israel ; 



142 

why, then, do you so foolishly pretend to prove from Scripture, 
that the Israelites sacrificed then to the true God, through the 
molten calf? whereas you see the word of God expressly 
declares the contrary ; as you may further know by the fol- 
lowing text : " They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the 
molten image : thus they changed their glory unto the simili- 
tude of an ox, that eateth grass; they forgot God their 
Savior, which had done great things in Egypt, works in the 
land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red Sea." Psalm 
106, v. 19, &c. Truly this was a strange thing, that they 
forgot so soon all these great wonders, which God showed 
them in their distress ; so that Moses had great reason to 
wonder how Aaron could be induced to be guilty of this peo- 
ple's damnable sin ; but all the excuse he alleged in his own 
defence was, that he was forced to it by reason of the vio- 
lence offered to him by this people, who were always inclined 
to mischief. Exod. c. 32, v. 22, 23. 

8. I answer also what you produce from the prophet Osee, 
(c. 2,) concerning Jeroboam's renewing this idolatry ; and I 
say, that he likewise worshipped false and strange gods, as it 
is evident by what God himself declared by the prophet Ahias, 
saying thus to Jeroboam : " Thou hast gone and made thee 
other gods, and hast cast me behind thy back," (1 Kings, 
c. 14, v. 9 ;) by which words it evidently appears that Jero- 
boam did not honor the God of Israel through those calves, 
which he caused to be made, but cast him off, and gave them 
the honor which was due to him ; and hence the Scripture 
says, that he sacrificed to those calves, which he had made, 
(1 Kings, c. 12, v. 32,) and gave to them the name Baal, even 
as the Israelites gave the holy name Jehovah to the calf 
which they had made, when they left Egypt. But pray what 
is all this stuff to our present purpose ? When did we ever 
give the honor due to God, or offer sacrifice to any of these 
images which we venerate? Why, then, do your ministers 
bring in such impertinent examples against our principles, 
which principles they certainly know are as far from idolatry 
as truth is from falsehood ; notwithstanding they make it their 



143 

business to persuade the poor ignorant people that we are 
idolaters, that thereby they may render our principles odious 
to them. 

9. Whereas the prophet foretold what great benedictions 
would descend on the world after the coming of Christ, (Ezek. 
c. 36, v. 25 :) " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and you shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all 
your idols will I cleanse you." " No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " you did not cleanse the Papists from their 
idols, but suffer these people to set up now many thousand 
idols, for one that was before the coming of Christ ; and 
hence our Danaeus says, (in his book against Bellarmin, 
p. 781,) that 'the Jesuits, who glory in having converted 
certain islands of the East and West Indies to the Christian 
faith, have brought them to worse idolatry than they had be- 
fore.' " Truly, brother, that is not the comfort which God 
had promised to those who would be converted from worship- 
ping false gods; for he further says thus of them : " Neither 
shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor 
with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgres- 
sions." Ezek. c. 37, v. 23. But, if those that have been 
converted to Christianity were to defile themselves no more 
" with idols or detestable things," how can these Indians or 
the Roman Catholics of Europe, who were converted from 
paganism to Christianity, be defiled with idols or detestable 
things 1 

10. Whereas the prophet foretold thus of the Gentiles, 
(Micah, c. 5, v. 13 :) " The graven images also I will cut 
off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and 
thou shalt no more worship the work of thy hand." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " you did not cutoff 
these graven images at all, for we see them daily worshipped 
by the Papists." I beseech you, brother, to consider serious- 
ly how plainly you contradict here the express word of God, 
which further says thus of the matter : " And the idols he shall 
utterly abolish." Isa. c. 2, v. 18. " In that day he shall be a 
fountain laying open to the house of David — and it shall come 



144 

to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off 
the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall be no 
more remembered." Zechar. c. 13, v. 1, 2. O, how piti- 
fully these idols would be cut out of the land, if now the 
Christian church were a thousand times more infected by 
idols than ever the world was before the coming of Christ ! 
I see, then, that you must confess that these five last texts of 
clear Scripture (which speak of us Christians) are altogether 
false, or else you must acknowledge that the images of which 
we make use, are not the images or idols which are prohib- 
ited by the Scripture, and consequently that we are not 
guilty of idolatry in worshipping or honoring those images 
which we make use of. 



SECTION XXII. 

Of the Relics of Saints, and Pilgrimages to Holy 

Places. 

1. Whereas the Scripture says, (2 Kings, c. 13, v. 21,) 

" And it came to pass as they were burying a man — and they 
cast him into the sepulchre of Eliseus, and when the man 
was let down, and touched the bones of Eliseus, he revived 
and stood upon his feet." " No, no," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, " we will give no credit now to such romances, 
for they are invented by the Papists, that thereby they might 
deceive the poor ignorant people, and cause them to commit 
idolatry by worshipping their pretended saints' relics, which 
doctrine St. Hierom foolishly taught,* as our Osiander re- 

* The doctrine here called foolish was also believed and taught by 
the following fathers of the church — Eusebius, St. Gregory Nyssenus, 
St. Augustine, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, etc. 
It is surprising to perceive how much more enlightened the reformado 
saints of our day are than were those immediate successors of the 
apostles. Eusebius Csesariensis (lib. 4, cap. 15, Histor. Eccles.) gives 



145 

lates, in Epit. centur. 4, p. 506." Truly, brother, you are 
not taught to answer after this manner by the word of God, 
which you pretend to be your only rule of faith ; for you see 
by the former texts, how God honored the bones of Eliseus 
by so miraculous an accident; and (c. 2, v. 13, 14, &,c.) how 
miraculously he honored the mantle of Elias, upon which 
Eliseus passed over the River Jordan. What wonder is it, 
then, to you, that the bones and garments of other saints should 
be likewise dignified with such miracles ? The devout woman 
said, " If I but touch his garment I shall be whole; and Jesus, 
turning about, and seeing her, said, Thy faith hath made thee 
whole." Matt. c. 9, v. 21, 22. Behold how the cure was 
wrought by the exterior touch, accompanied with interior 
faith. Surely this touch could not be superstitious ; for if it 
were, the cure would not follow it ; and the whole multitude 
would be guilty of superstition ; for of them the evangelist 
says, " The whole multitude sought to touch him, for virtue 

an account of the martyrdom of St. Poly carp , a disciple of the 
apostles, which account Eusebius took out of a letter which the church 
of Smyrna wrote to the church of Pontus, relating the whole trial 
and execution of the holy martyr, and which he says was extant in 
his days, and seen by himself. In this letter Eusebius affirms that, 
when Polycarp was burned, the Christians gathered his bones with 
more earnestness than if they were precious stones. The words of 
the letter are translated from the Greek as follows : So did we after- 
ward gather out of the ashes and carry away his bones, more pre- 
cious than jewels, and more pure than gold, and laid them up in a 
proper place. Here is an extraordinary veneration for bones, and a 
value set upon them beyond jewels or precious stones, by the church 
of Smyrna. And whom did the church of Smyrna learn this doctrine 
from, but from St. Polycarp himself? And whom could he learn it 
from but from his masters, the apostles of Jesus Christ, and particu- 
larly from St. John the Evangelist, with whom he long conversed, 
and from whose breast (as I may say) he sucked all his spiritual wis- 
dom ? 

St. Gregory Nyssenus, in his funeral oration upon Theodorus the 
martyr, speaks thus of his soul and body : The soul, indeed, (says 
he,) since it icent on high, is at rest in its own place, and, being dis- 
solved from the body, lives together with those of its own likeness. But 
the venerable and immaculate body, its instrument, being dressed and 

13 



146 

came out of him, and cured all." Luke, c. 6, v. 19. We in- 
deed touch the relics with faith and reverence ; but the virtue, 
by which any favor is then granted to us, comes only instru- 
mentally from the saint whose relics we touch, God giving 
him power to assist us for our devout recourse to him. You 
have a manifest example of this in the Acts of the Apostles, 
where it is said that " God wrought special miracles by the 
hand of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the 
sick handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed 
from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them." Acts, 
c. 19, v. 11, 12. If, therefore, you have not a mind to con- 
demn the first and best Christians for so touching, with that 
great veneration, St. Paul's body, and for bringing those 
handkerchiefs which had touched him to the sick, why do 
you censure us for hoping to obtain some blessing by touch- 
ing and carrying about us relics of saints, which commonly 
bear a far greater relation to them than the handkerchiefs 

adorned, is, icith much honor and veneration, deposited in a magnificent 
and sacred place. 

St. Augustine (Epist. ad Quintianum) writes thus to him concern- 
ing the relics of St. Stephen, which he sent him by the bearers of 
his letter : They carry indeed the relics of the most blessed and m,ost 
glorious martyr Stephen, which your holiness is not ignorant how con- 
veniently you ought to honor, as we have done. 

St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration upon St. Cyprian, says, The 
dust of Cyprian can with faith do all things, as they know who have 
experienced, it, and have transmitted the miracles unto us. 

St. Chrysostom, (lib. contra Gentil.,) speaking of the relics of St. 
Babyla : The miracles which arc daily wrought by the martyrs abun- 
dantly confirm our opinion. 

St. Jerome (lib. ad versus Vigilantium) says, Vigilantius is sorry the 
relics of the martyrs should be covered with a precious veil, and not 
rather bundled together, in rags or sackcloth, or cast on the dunghill, 
that Vigilantius, alone drunk and sleepy, might be adored. 

I could fill numberless tomes with the sayings of the fathers and 
ecclesiastical writers on this subject ; but the foregoing extracts are 
amply sufficient to convince the most skeptical, that the doctrine and 
practice of the Roman Catholic Church of the present day are in strict 
conformity with those of the church at the earliest period of its 
existence. Nary's Reply to the archbishop of Tuam. — Ed. 



147 

bore to St. Paul? and yet the Scripture declares that God 
endowed them with the power of healing infirmities and ex- 
pelling wicked spirits from the people. Pray, what hath a less 
relation to a man than his shadow ? And yet we read in Scrip- 
ture that the primitive Christians had a great veneration even 
for St. Peter's shadow ; and God confirmed their devotion by 
many miracles, as is evident from the Acts of the Apostles, 
where it is said that " they brought forth the sick into the 
streets, and laid them in beds and couches, that at least the 
shadow of Peter, passing by, might overshadow some of them: 
there came also a multitude out of the cities round about 
unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were 
vexed with unclean spirits, and they were healed every one." 
Acts, c. 5, v. 15, 16. 

Since, then, you see, by clear Scripture, that very many 
came from other cities to Jerusalem, in order to receive some 
blessing from St. Peter, and to reverence his very shadow, 
why do you blame us now for believing that we can receive 
some blessings by touching and reverencing St. Peter's body, 
which we certainly know to be still preserved in the city of 
Rome, together with the bodies of several other saints? Or 
why are you so much surprised that these bodies, and several 
other relics, could be preserved for so many hundred years ? 
Whereas you know that the manna, the rod of Aaron, and 
the table of the covenant, were preserved near two thousand 
years uncorrupted ; for the tabernacle, and all things per- 
taining to it, were finished about the year of the world two 
thousand four hundred and eighty-five ; and they were only 
lost when Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus and Vespasian, 
about forty years after our Savior's death. St. Paul gives you 
an account of these things, (Heb. c. 9, v. 1, &lc.,) and how 
honorably they were gilt and covered with gold, when they 
were preserved in the ark ; and you may see, in the second 
book of Chronicles, (c. 5, v. 2, &>c.,) with what great pomp 
and procession both these things and the ark were carried 
from Sion to Jerusalem : why, then, do you now ridicule pro- 
cessions that are made in the translation of the relics of 



148 

saints 1 Or why do you deceive your poor ignorant flock, 
by telling them that the word of God is against our belief 
and practice concerning this matter ? Whereas we have the 
perpetual tradition of the church and the former seven texts 
of clear Scripture (to which I might add more) in proof of our 
doctrine; but you were never able to produce either antiquity, 
or one text of plain Scripture, which could prove its unlaw- 
fulness. 

2. Whereas the Scripture says (Gen. c. 46, v. 1) that 
" Israel took his journey, with all that he had, and came to 
Beersheba, and offered sacrifice to the God of his father Isaac." 
" No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " Israel had 
little to do, when he went thither to offer his sacrifice, because 
God is not more accessible in one place than he is in anoth- 
er, as our Catechism against Popery affirms." p. 39. What, 
brother, do you imagine that people of sense or learning will 
prefer this imaginary notion to that which the word of God 
most clearly declares? Or do you think that your own minis- 
ters are more holy or wise in this respect than the patriarch 
Jacob, who, the Scripture tells you, practised the contrary of 
what they make you believe 1 Truly, you might have some 
manner of pretence to give credit to them, if their assertion 
had been confirmed by some heavenly vision, as Jacob's de- 
votion was at the aforesaid well, as may be seen by the 
second verse of this chapter : nay, we read (Gen. c. 26, 
v. 23, &c.) that his father, Isaac, was also honored with a 
heavenly vision, while performing his devotion at the same 
well, of which you may read more, Gen. c. 21. And if 
God be no more accessible in one place than he is in another, 
why doth the Scripture say, " Ye shall not do so unto the 
Lord, but unto the place which the Lord your God shall 
choose out of your tribes, to put his name there ; even unto 
his habitation shall ye seek, and thither shall ye come: thither 
shall ye bring your burnt-offerings and sacrifices. Deut. 
c. 12, v. 4, &c. And hence it is said of God that " thine 
eyes may be open upon this house, night and day upon this 
place whereof thou hast said that thou wouldst put thy name, 



149 

to hearken to the prayer which thy servant prayeth towards 
this place; hearken, therefore, unto the supplication of thy 
servant and of thy people made towards this place." 2 Chron. 
c. 6, v. 20, &c. And in the ensuing verses there are many 
blessings solicited for those who would pray in that holy 
place ; wherefore people undertook to go thither in pilgrim- 
age, though they were obliged by the law to go there thrice 
every year, as the word of God declares, saying, " Three 
times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord," 
(Ex. c. 23, v. 17;) and because Daniel (in his captivity) 
could not go to perform his devotion there, the windows of 
his chamber being towards Jerusalem, " he kneeled upon his 
knees thrice a day, and prayed, and gave thanks to his God, 
as he did aforetime." Dan. c. 6, v. 10. You may take notice 
also of what the angel told Moses, (Acts, c. 7, v. 23,) and 
to Joshua, (c. 5, v. 15;) for he told them " that the places 
whereupon they stood were holy ground ; " but if the transi- 
tory preference of those angels so sanctified the ground 
upon which they stood for a short time, how can you deny 
that the permanent abode of the bodies of the saints doth not 
likewise sanctify the places wherein they are preserved, and 
in which they shed their blood, by suffering martyrdom for 
Jesus Christ? for I am sure that you have neither Scripture 
nor reason which can prove the contrary. Do you not see, 
by Scripture, (2 Kings, c. 5, v. 14,) that Naaman, the Assyr- 
ian, was cleansed from his leprosy by washing himself seven 
times in the River Jordan, and that, after his cure, he besought 
Eliseus (v. 17) to permit him to carry with him two mules' 
burden of earth from the Holy Land, that hereafter he might 
offer sacrifice to God upon that earth in his own country, 
because he could not (by reason of the great journey) come 
to Jerusalem to perforin his devotion. You see, also, by Scrip- 
ture, that there were " certain Greeks who came to Jerusa- 
lem to worship at the feast." John, c. 12, v. 20. Yet those 
people were not obliged to the observance of the Jewish laws ; 
and, notwithstanding this, their devotion prompted them to 
undergo the hardships of that pilgrimage; and it happened 
13* 



150 

very fortunately to the eunuch who came from Ethiopia to 
perform his devotion there, for, at his returning home, the 
angel of the Lord came to Philip, and desired him to meet 
this eunuch, which he did, and hereby the eunuch believed in 
Christ, and was immediately baptized by him. Acts, c. 8, 
v. 26, &,c. You see, likewise, in Scripture, that memorable 
passage of St. John, which says, " There is in Jerusalem, by 
the sheep-market, a pool having five porches, and in these 
were a great multitude of persons, blind, lame, withered, 
expecting the stirring of the water ; and an angel of the 
Lord descended at a certain time into the pond, and the 
water was stirred, and he that had gone down first in the pond, 
after the stirring of the water, was made whole of what infir- 
mity soever." John, c. 5, v. 2, &c. Pray how came this 
water to possess so great a virtue, and that angel of God was 
deputed to set it in motion? Truly, you can give no reason 
why it should possess that virtue more than any other water, 
but that God was pleased to have it so, because the carcasses 
of the sheep, which were sacrificed in the temple, were 
washed in this pond ; or else because the blood of the sheep 
ran into it ; yet I see you will not grant that God now sanc- 
tifies any place wherein the blood of martyrs has been shed ; 
though those martyrs willingly sacrificed their lives for the 
faith of Jesus Christ, yet you will not give credit to any of 
these miracles that are wrought at such places, or at the 
shrines of the saints, but you must ask, forsooth, now, Where 
are these miracles recorded in the word of God? as if there 
had been, ever since the apostles' times, Scripture writers, 
who might record, and testify all the particulars, which have 
since occurred, concerning such matters ; and indeed, if 
there had been such Scripture writers, I am sure that they 
would not only testify these things, but also publicly condemn 
the novel opinions which you hold against the authority of 
the universal Church, and against these clear texts of Scrip- 
ture, which are already committed to writing. 



151 



SECTION XXIII. 

Of the Lord's Prayer, and Glory be, to the Father, 
to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. 

1. Whereas Christ says to his disciples, after he had 
reproved the hypocritical prayers of the Pharisees, (Matt. 
c. 6, v. 5, &,c.,) " Thus, therefore, shall ye pray : Our Father, 
which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom 
come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven," &c. 
" No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " I will not 
pray after that manner, nor make use of that Papistical charm, 
which is both unprofitable and unlawful to say ; but I will 
use some extemporary prayer made by myself, for this is now 
the common practice of the reformed Presbyterian religion 
in the kingdom of Scotland." * I beseech you, brother 
William, to oblige your learned Presbyterian ministers to 
show you (if they can) in what part of Scripture they read 
that it is better for you to employ these extemporary prayers 
of your own making, than that set form of prayers which 
Christ had composed, and commanded his own disciples to 
practise. Truly, brother, it seems that these people judge 
themselves to be now wiser than Christ was when he made 
this form of prayers ; and it also evidently appears by their 
practice, that they have a mind to become the disciples of 
another master, as they vilify that form of prayer which 
Christ had commanded his own disciples to use. 

2. Whereas the Scripture says, (1 Tim. c. l,v. 17,) "Now 
unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the wise God, be 
honor and glory, forever and ever, amen." " No, no," says the 
Presbyterian, " no more glory to the Father, no more glory to 

* It is also the practice of the Congregationalists, Baptists, Meth- 
odists, and the other multitudinous discordant sects with which this 
country abounds, who, in many other things as well as in this, have 
greatly improved (?) the Papistical doctrine and usages of the Sa- 
vior. — Ed. 



152 

the Son, no more glory to the Holy Ghost; for our learned 
ministers have wholly banished that out of our church, and 
they will not suffer us to add it as a conclusion to any of the 
psalms hereafter." Truly, brother William, your ministers 
are not taught to do so by the word of God, which they pre- 
tend to be their only rule of faith ; and though this hymn be 
not word for word in one place of the Scripture, (as the Lord's 
prayer is,) yet the sense and similar words, if not the same, 
are to be found in it, as you may evidently perceive both by 
the former and following text : St. Peter speaks thus on the 
subject : " Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord 
and Savior Jesus Christ ; to him be glory, both now and for- 
ever, amen." 2 Pet. c. 3, v. 18. " To the only wise God our 
Savior be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now 
and forever, amen." Jude, v. 25. " To God be glory in the 
church, by Christ Jesus, throughout all generations, world 
without end, amen." Ephes. c. 3, v. 21. And St. John tells 
us that himself had heard every creature in heaven, and 
upon earth, saying, ''To him who sitteth upon the throne, and 
to the Lamb, blessing, benediction, and honor, and glory, and 
power, forever and ever." Rev. c. 5, v. 13. You see now, 
brother, by all these texts of Scripture, how directly your 
Presbyterian ministers contradict here the word of God ; and 
if you give credit to St. Basil's authority, he tells you {ad 
Ampiloch.) that this hymn of glorification was used in the 
Church from the very time of the apostles ; and he says that 
it is an apostolic tradition ; but it was sung more frequently 
in honor of the blessed Trinity after the Arians began to 
corrupt it; for they blasphemously said that the Son was 
made by the Father in time, and that there was a time in 
which he was not; and hence the council of Nice added as 
an appendix to the hymn (against them) the following words, 
viz. : "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, 
world without end, amen." For the fathers of this council 
thought hereby to stop the mouths of those heretics, who 
were not satisfied with changing this hymn, but also the form 
of baptism ; for they administered it as follows : " I baptize 



153 

thee in the name of the Father, by the Son, in the Holy 
Ghost;" and they likewise sung the hymn, saying, "Glory 
be to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Ghost; " whereby 
you see that the Arians (who denied the mystery of the Holy 
Trinity) but changed this hymn, and yet that your Presbyte- 
rian ministers (who pretend to acknowledge this mystery) 
are not satisfied with changing it, but have altogether abol- 
ished it ; which is more than the Arians ever offered to do in 
this matter. 



SECTION XXIV. 

Of Tradition, and the Judge of Controversy. 

1. Whereas St. Paul says, (2 Thess. c. 2, v. 15,) " There- 
fore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye 
have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." " No, no, 
Paul," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " we will neither 
hold nor believe that doctrine which was only taught by word 
of mouth; for our confession of faith says (c. 1) that the 
whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his 
own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly 
set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences 
may be deduced from Scripture." Truly, brother, if those 
who composed your confession of faith had been either good 
philosophers or sound divines, they would not teach you this 
doctrine ; for they must certainly know that the form of argu- 
ing, of which virtue the consequences are inferred, is but 
human, and consequently they must know that the conclusion 
which depends on a human joint cause cannot be formally 
infallible, or the object of divine faith, unless it be otherwise 
revealed to be God's true word ; and it is evident, by the very 
definition of a syllogism, that the truth of the consequence 
is a distinct truth from that of the premises ; and hence it 
follows that the truth of these consequences, which your min* 



154 

isters infer, must of necessity be a distinct truth from that of 
the premises ; nay, I would fain know, from these new di- 
vines, which of the holy fathers of the primitive church ever 
taught that people ought to believe for divine truth these 
conclusions, which are only by syllogistic form, seemingly in- 
ferred either from one or two premises revealed in Scripture : 
truly, with all their exertions, they will never be able to show 
me this doctrine in any of the writings of the holy fathers ; 
for those men have followed more strictly St. Paul's com- 
mand, which says, " Beware lest any man should deceive you 
by philosophy and vain deceit." Colos. c. 2, v. 8. And if you 
have not a mind to be deceived, believe not your ministers' 
consequences, which are always either fallible, or ill deduced 
from the premises ; therefore oblige them to show you these 
consequences to be clear Scripture ; or else the holy fathers' 
express words, (in their commentaries on the texts from which 
these consequences are seemingly inferred,) legally assembled 
in some general council ; and if they can produce you neither 
of the two, it is evident that their doctrine is both false and 
pernicious to poor souls, and consequently that those texts, so 
perversely expounded according to their private interpreta-, 
tion, ought not to be received as the undoubted word of God ; 
for before you believe it is so, you ought first to know that 
interpretation to be true, and wholly the intention of the 
Holy Ghost, which to know is a thing quite impossible with- 
out a revelation, or some express text of Scripture, which 
commands us to prefer the judgment of such ministers to the 
universal decree of a whole general council, lawfully assem- 
bled ; and in case there had been such a text, (as there is not,) 
who could now certify to us that it would be the pure word 
of God, and that this would be its interpretation? This you 
ought to prove by some other text, which might be likewise 
questioned, and so without an end. 

2. You cannot elude this argument by saying, with your 
confession of faith, (c. 1,) that " the canonical books of 
Scripture are worthy to be believed to be the word of God, 
for the efficacy of their doctrine and for the majesty of their 



155 

style." For find me (if you can) in the book of Micheas, 
which you hold to be canonical, any one text which contains 
more efficacious doctrine, or majesty of style, than appear in 
the book of Baruch, which you believe to be apocryphal. 
Take the book of Tobias, and the book of Judith, which you 
reject as apocryphal, and compare each of them to the book 
of Numbers, which you hold to be canonical, and see if it be 
possible for you to point out any one chapter, or verse, in the 
book of Numbers, which conveys more efficacy, majesty, or 
style, than appear in these other mentioned books ; and if you 
cannot show me this, (which I defy you to do,) you only show, 
by the doctrine of your confession of faith, that you vent 
your own fancies for the grounds of your belief. I wonder 
how could it happen that the greatest doctors, that God ever 
raised up in his church for its edification, have, upon some 
occasion or other, never professed their belief that such or 
such a book was the true word of God, because by its perusal 
they discover that such efficacy, majesty, and style, appeared 
in it. Were all these doctors devoid of the spirit of God, even 
in the foundation of all true belief? Had none of them either 
sense or reason, wit or learning, for the space of fifteen hun- 
dred and odd years; during which time none could find out 
these evident lights, to show that such and such books only 
were the true word of God, and all the rest apocryphal ? Or 
how came it that, in the beginning of your deformation, you did 
not find out that evident light? for in all Queen Elizabeth's 
reign, you read thus in the 105th Psalm, (v. 28,) " They 
were not obedient; " contrary to what you read now, saying, 
" They rebelled not against his word : " that and two hundred 
other corruptions, you sung them daily in your Psalms, and 
Queen Elizabeth caused your clergy to subscribe that these 
corruptions were God's true word ; for in the twenty-sixth 
year of her reign, she commanded Whitgift, her archbishop 
of Canterbury, to set forth three new articles to be subscribed 
by all her clergy, and the second of these articles was, that 
the Book of Common Prayer contained nothing contrary to 
the word of God, as your own Sir Richard Baker relates, in 



156 

his Chronicle, p. 398. But some of her ministers (in a trea- 
tise of her excellent majesty) told her, after the rest sub- 
scribed to those articles, the following words: " Our Book of 
Common Prayer does in addition, subtraction, and alteration, 
differ from the Hebrew in two hundred places, at least." 
And your own Carlisle (in his book of Christ's Descent into 
Hell, p. 116) speaks also thus of the English Bible, (trans- 
lated by Bishop Tindal, in King Henry the Eighth's time :) 
" The translators thereof have deprived the sense, or obscured 
the truth, and deceived the ignorant in many places ; they 
alienate the Scripture from the right sense; and finally they 
show themselves to love darkness more than light, false- 
hood more than truth." If, therefore, your church was be- 
guiled in this manner (as your own authors confess) at her 
first appearance to these three kingdoms, why may she not 
now also be beguiled 1 seeing ye have now no infallible guide, 
any more than you had in those times ; and hence you may 
truly say that you are not certain that you have divine faith, 
because your learned ministers tell you that your Bibles are 
corrupted, that their own interpretation is not infallible, and 
consequently they cannot say that they have divine faith. 

3. You may also tell them that they know not for certain 
which books are of canonical Scripture, unless they recur to the 
tradition of the Church, yea, to the tradition of the present 
Church, for the church of former ages could not assure them 
that the Scripture would be free from corruption in this age. 
Is it not, then, a great contradiction for you to say (as you 
must do) that you know, by the tradition of the present Church, 
the Scripture to be the word of God ; if the same word of 
God bids you not to believe the tradition of this Church, 
which if you will not believe, you can never certainly know 
that these books you admit to be canonical are the true 
word of God, or that the copies of these books, you have now, 
are incorrupted in those languages in which the Scripture 
was written ; and indeed, if it cannot be known for certain 
whether the originals be faithfully copied or not, all the trans- 
lations of these originals cannot be known to be without cor- 



157 

ruption ; for you have no Scripture which assures you of 
this, because you have no Scripture which tells you that the 
copies you make use of at present are conformable to the 
true copies, which were first written by the sacred writers ; 
and you, who reject the tradition and testimony of the Church, 
cannot possibly make it appear that the Hebrew copies are 
not grossly corrupted since the time of the apostles ; for many 
great alterations might have been made in them since by the 
rabbins, when they add points to the texts under pretence 
of preventing such mistakes as might easily happen to those 
that were not skilled in reading the Hebrew language, which 
to that time had no points to express the vowels ; for the ori- 
ginal was written only with consonants, and the vowels were 
left to be added by the well-instructed reader, for whose help, 
in reading the Scripture right, the Jewish rabbins first began 
to add certain points ; and hence I ask, what certainty have 
you that these rabbins, being Christ's enemies, have added 
the right vowels to every syllable of the whole Hebrew Bible ? 
for the insertion of vowels, whether right or wrong, depended 
not only upon the assuredness of their skill, but also upon 
their honest and sincere dealing, which you cannot, in true 
prudence, much expect from such sworn enemies to all Chris- 
tianity ; nay, we know for certain how they have endeavored 
to deceive us already, by altering a whole sentence, which 
your own English Bible testifies, in the 22d Psalm, v. 16, 
where you read, with us, " they pierced my hands and feet; " 
which clear prophecy of our Savior's crucifixion is quite per- 
verted by them to another sense, in the present Hebrew copies, 
where those malicious Jews would have us to read, " as a 
lion my hands and feet." 

4. Now, as for the Greek copies translated, three hundred 
years before the New Testament was written, by the seventy 
interpreters, you reject it in several places of great conse- 
quence, of which I shall produce the following examples : the 
first is that of the 118th Psalm, v. 112, where David says, " I 
have inclined my heart to perform thy justification for reward," 
which words plainly testify that David acknowledged he per- 
14 



158 

formed good works for the sake of the reward which he 
hoped to derive from them ; but your ministers, to avoid this 
translation of the Septuagint, recur to the Hebrew copies 
of a doubtful sense, the one agreeing with the Septuagint, 
and the other serving their purpose ; and so they have trans- 
lated it after their own way, and cause you to believe for cer- 
tain that you ought to read it thus : " I have inclined my 
heart to perform thy statutes always, even to the end." The 
second is that of Daniel, (c. 4, v. 27,) where the prophet 
spoke to the King Nabuchodonosor, saying thus to him : 
" Redeem thy sins with alms to the poor ; " which words are 
literally translated from the Septuagint ; but because they 
prove manifestly Popish satisfaction, as you term it, your min- 
isters did fly to the present Hebrew copy, which hath both 
the sense of the Septuagint, and another sense that help them 
to shift off satisfactory works; therefore they make you read 
it, as they thought convenient for their own ends, by saying, 
" Break off your sins by righteousness." But what need have 
I to go further in pointing out such examples? whereas your 
own Mr. Broughton, a man as skilful in Greek and Hebrew 
as any that lived in his time in all England, gave the following 
censure, in his advertisement of corruptions, to your bishops : 
" Your public translation of Scripture in English is such, 
as it pervert eth the text of the Old Testament, in eight hun- 
dred and forty-eight places ; and it causes millions of millions 
to reject the New Testament, and to run to eternal flames" 
As for the New Testament, which almost all, except St. Mat- 
thew's Gospel, was written by the apostles themselves in 
Greek, your own Beza, upon the Acts, (c. 17, v. 16,) enu- 
merates a whole catalogue of corruptions in the Greek copies ; 
which corruptions, and different readings in several manu- 
scripts procured by your Bishop Usher, hindered him not to 
publish a New Testament, with various lections and annota- 
tions, as Mr. Cressy relates, (Emol. c. 8, n. 3 ;) and in the pref- 
ace to the introduction of your great English Bible, published 
in London, the translators declare, " that, among the number- 
less translations which are extant this day in Europe, that 



159 

there is none of them all which is of divine and infallible 
authority." You see, therefore, by your own authors, how 
both your Old and New Testament are full of corruptions 
and errors; and yet you stand so far in your own light, that 
you do not consider how unjustly your ministers would have 
you stand precisely to the judgment of their corrupted Bibles, 
which, they persuade you to believe, is the only judge of con- 
troversy. 

5. If you answer, saying, that " your judge and guide 
is not the translated copy as you have it now, but the origi- 
nal in Greek and Hebrew," I ask you, what will your poor 
ignorant flock do, who neither hear what their rule of faith 
would have them to practise, nor see what it alleges? for if 
" there be not one infallible translation in Europe at this 
day" it is obvious to every one that you are deluded this day ; 
because ye are taught, on the one hand, by your ministers, to 
judge for yourselves; and on the other you are told, by your 
chiefest doctors and translators, that you have not in all 
Europe a true translation, whereby you can rule your judg- 
ments. Truly, brother, it seems, by your doctrine, that God 
has not given sufficient means of knowing the truth to all 
those of your religion here in Europe, but suffers them to 
seek the truth in false translations, which he knows to be 
liars ; and though divine faith be grounded on the veracity of 
God, who says that such a thing is so or so, yet, if the trans- 
lators of your Bible either willingly or ignorantly tell you a 
quite different thing, you are left entirely destitute of divine 
faith, which is requisite for salvation. I thought, brother, 
that your faith was founded on the written word of God ; but 
I see now, by your own principles, that you cannot assuredly 
show his written word in any translation, from the original 
copy which you have at this day, in all Europe. If you 
answer, that " the illumination of the Spirit tells you God's 
true word, without the mediation of any uncertain and un- 
doubted means, conveying it to you," then you must be a 
prophet, and I believe one of those prophets whom St. Paul 
bids us to shun. Acts, c. 20, v. 29, &c. Truly, I know not 



160 

how you can, without great presumption, arrogate to your 
private spirit so secure an assistance from the Holy Ghost, 
to preserve assuredly your judgment from all errors in divine 
matters; whereas you deny such an assistance to a whole 
general council. Can you prudently believe that you have a 
greater gift from the Holy Ghost than a whole general coun- 
cil lawfully assembled? or any of the holiest doctors that 
ever flourished in the Catholic Church before Luther's ap- 
pearance ? Pray tell me, where does the word of God certify 
that you have this assistance from the Holy Ghost, in ex- 
pounding all texts of Scripture according to your modern 
whims, which were unknown to the whole world for the 
space of fifteen hundred and odd years after the birth of 
Christ 1 and if you cannot show me this text, I will not believe 
your doctrine ; because you have often told me, heretofore, 
that people ought not to believe any thing as infallibly true, 
but only that which is written in the word of God. 

6. Indeed, I see you conclude with a small crumb of con- 
solation, for you have no text of Scripture that assures you 
that the illuminating Spirit, which you imagine is the Spirit 
of God, and not the spirit of Satan ; neither have you any 
text of Scripture which assures you that you have divine faith 
at all ; for you know not by Scripture, which God commands 
you to hold on his own authority, from what your translator 
gives you to hold upon his own ; and if you say that " the 
translations are sufficient means to divine faith, when they 
contain all things necessary to salvation without any error 
against faith, or sound morals," I shall only then beseech you 
to consider how impossible it is for you to know that your 
translation contains these necessary points ; unless you are 
first certain, by plain Scripture, which of them you are obliged 
to know, under pain of eternal damnation. (If you be at age, 
or in your senses,) I would fain know which of your learned 
ministers could assure me, for certain, that no point neces- 
sary for salvation is contained in any of the ten books you 
deny to be the true word of God, or in any of the books 
which were transmitted, but are wholly lost, and are men- 



161 

tioned in Scripture : for example, the book of Numbers says, 
" It is said in the book of the wars of the Lord," (Numb. 
c. 21, v. 14:) this book is not extant: and Solomon spoke 
three thousand proverbs, and his canticles were a thousand 
and five, (1 Kings, c. 4, v. 32 :) of these a great part are lost : 
and the first book of Chronicles says, " Now the acts of 
David the king, first and last, behold, are they not written in 
the book of Samuel the Seer, and in the book of Nathan the 
Prophet, and in the book of Gad the Seer?" 1 Chron. c. 29, 
v. 29. And the second of Chronicles says also thus : " Now 
the rest of the acts of Solomon, the first and last, are they 
not written in the book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the 
Prophecy of Ahijah, and in the visions of Addo the Seer ? " 
(2 Chron. c. 9, v. 29 ;) and it says also, (c. 20, v. 34,) " Now 
the rest of the acts of Jehosaphat, first and last, behold, they 
are written in the book of Jehu, the son of Hanani." The 
aforesaid books are likewise lost. We see by Scripture that 
what is said in them is said by prophets : and St. Peter says 
that " the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, 
but that the holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost." 2 Pet. c. 1, v. 21. Standing, therefore, to what is 
known by Scripture, these books, which are lost, delivered 
what was spoken by the Holy Ghost, and consequently con- 
tained the true word of God ; hence we may lawfully infer 
that we have not now the whole word of God entirely written in 
those books of Scripture which were transmitted to us. This 
is further proved by the ensuing texts of the New Testament. 
St. Paul says, (1 Cor. c. 5, v. 9,) "I wrote unto you in an 
epistle." Note here that he says these words in his first 
epistle to the Corinthians ; where is, then, that epistle which 
he wrote to them, before this other epistle, which we now 
call his first epistle 1 And he bids the Colossians to read in 
their churches his epistle from Laodicea. Coloss. c. 4, v. 16. 
Pray where is this other epistle of St. Paul to be had now ? 
Who knows but this, or that other of his to the Corinthians, 
expressly might have contained several points controverted 
between us? Perhaps the word transubstantiation, and the 
14* 



162 

word purgatory, are written in them. St. Matthew (c. 27, 
v. 9) quotes some words spoken by the prophet Jeremi, which 
are not to be found in all his book, as you have it now ; 
wherefore part of this prophet's book is quite lost ; and St. 
Matthew says, also, that " it was spoken by the prophets, that 
Christ should be called a Nazarene." Matt. c. 2, v. 23. The 
books of those prophets who foretold it are also lost, for we 
find not that Christ is called a Nazarene in any of the pro- 
phetical books that are extant ; and hence the want of those 
books of the Old Testament occasioned St. Justin (writing 
against Tryphon) to affirm that the Jews destroyed many 
books of the Old Testament, that the New might not seem to 
agree with it as it should. Who can now doubt but that 
many things, as necessary as others that are in those books 
which we now have, were written in those books which we 
have not ? Where is it written, in your present Bible, that ail 
things necessary to be believed are written in these books 
which we have now ? Quote me but one text of clear Scrip- 
ture which declares this, and then I will believe your doc- 
trine ; or else give all those books now mentioned, that I may 
know the points which are necessary to be believed ; for you 
teach that all the books of Scripture are required to show 
those points which are necessary for salvation ; but I shall 
mention now several points, and the knowledge of some of 
them is necessary for salvation ; yet you cannot find any of 
them expressly contained, from the first of Genesis to the last 
verse of the Revelations. 

7. First, the present Scripture does not mention which 
books are the true word of God, and which are not. Second- 
ly, the Scripture does not mention which are the true, incor- 
rupted copies of those true books, or which copies are false and 
corrupted, or in what places they are corrupted. Thirdly, you 
stand in need of some infallible guide to tell you which is the 
undoubted sense of those true copies, and which is not. But 
you, who will not hear the Church, are not taught by Scrip- 
ture which guide you are to follow in this matter. Fourthly, 
you hold it is damnable to marry within certain degrees of 



103 

kindred ; you hold also that a man ought not to have two 
wives at once ; yet neither of those points is plainly forbid- 
den in Scripture : nay, if we are to practise what the Old 
Testament relates, a man may have at once two wives, against 
which practice you have not one clear text in all the New 
Testament. Fifthly, the Creed of St. Athanasius (of which 
you make use in your Book of Common Prayer) contains 
several points for which you cannot show plain Scripture; 
as that " God the Father is not begotten ; that God the Son 
is not made, but begotten by the Father only ; that the Holy 
Ghost is neither made nor begotten, but doth proceed from 
the Father and the Son ; and that he who will be saved must 
believe this, for this is an article of that catholic faith, which 
if a man hold not entirely, and inviolably, without all doubt 
he shall eternally perish." You also believe another Creed, 
(that is contained in your Book of Common Prayer,) which 
affirms that " Christ is of one substance with the Father, and 
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son." 
And to those two I add the Apostles' Creed, for which also you 
have not Scripture. Sixthly, you have no plain Scripture for 
the lawfulness of working on Saturday, or for the unlawful- 
ness of working on Sunday. Seventhly, since, according to 
St. Paul, (Ephes. c. 4, v. 11, 12,) the Church is to be pro- 
vided with lawful pastors, and that with perpetual succession, 
it is necessary to know whether the power of choosing these 
pastors belongs to other ecclesiastical persons, or must they 
be appointed only by the authority of mere laymen ; and if so, 
whether this secular authority be lawfully obtained, or unlaw- 
fully usurped. The knowledge of this is necessary, for we 
are commanded by the Scripture (John, c. 10) not to hear 
those pastors who enter not by the door. Eighthly, it is 
necessary to know what power these lawful pastors have over 
secular men, be they emperors, kings, magistrates, or com- 
mon people, and what laws any of these particular pastors 
can make, and how strictly these laws oblige the people. 
Show me also from Scripture what public service these pas- 
tors ought to perform in the churches, and how often, and in 



164 

what manner, this public service ought to be done. Show 
me likewise from Scripture what a sacrament is ; or what is 
required for the lawful administration of a true sacrament; 
by whom is every sacrament to be administered ; and whether 
the ministers of all sacraments ought,, of necessity, to have 
received any orders ; and what orders must they receive ; 
by whom, in what manner, or form, must these orders be con- 
ferred; and whether are we bound to receive the sacra- 
ments only once in our life, or as often as we please. 

Notwithstanding the aforesaid points are not expressly con- 
tained in the Scripture, yet I see that Protestants and Pres- 
byterians do believe them, by the tradition of that Church 
from which they revolted ; and hence I inquire, why do they 
not also believe other traditions that are not contrary to the 
word of God, but proposed as divine truths by the same 
Church 1 Truly I know no convincing reason or authority 
which can move them to believe the tradition of the Church 
with regard to some particular points, and to misbelieve the 
tradition of the same Church concerning others equally im- 
portant, which could never be proved to be either directly or 
indirectly contrary to the word of God. Do not they know 
that the Scripture commands them, under pain of being ac- 
counted as publicans and heathens, to hear the church ? Matt. 
c. 18, v. 17. Do not they know that " she is the pillar and 
ground of truth, (1 Tim. c. 3, v. 15,) and that she hath the 
spirit of truth, suggesting unto her all things" ? (John, c. 14, 
v. 26.) and that she hath such pastors and teachers as may 
still secure her from all circumvention of error ? (Ephes. c. 4, 
v. 11, 12, &,c. ;) and that God's covenant with her is perpet- 
ual 1 " My spirit, saith he, that is in thee, and my word that I 
have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of the mouth of 
thy seed, nor out of thy seed's seed, from this present and 
forever." Isa. c. 59, v. 21. You see, therefore, by clear 
Scripture, that the Church cannot err in proposing false tradi- 
tion as divine truth ; and hence St. Irenaeus says, " What if 
the apostles had left us no Scripture 1 Ought not we to follow 
the order of tradition, which they delivered to them to whom 



165 

they committed the churches ? to ichich ordinance many net* 
tions of those barbarous people, who have believed in Christ, 
do consent, without letter or ink, having salvation (that is, 
soul-saving doctrine) written in their hcai'ts." Iren, lib. 3, 
c. 4. Nay, brother, when the whole canon of Scripture was 
fully completed, there was no mention made even of the least 
care taken by the apostles to divulge it in other languages, 
wherein it might be read to the nations then converted ; which 
is a manifest sign that they thought all Christians were suffi- 
ciently provided for, only by what they heard by word of 
mouth, and by the tradition of the Church ; and do you think 
that your ministers' private judgments ought to be preferred 
to that of the apostles', and the following words of St. Paul, 
" Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother that walk- 
eth disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received 
of us " ? 2 Thess. c. 3, v. 6. Was it not for keeping this 
tradition, and the form of doctrine taught to the Romans by 
word of mouth, that St. Paul praises them, saying, " Ye have 
obeyed ffbm your heart that form of doctrine which was de- 
livered you?" Rom. c. 6, v. 17. Surely this could not be 
that form of doctrine which is contained in the whole canon 
of Scripture ; for the whole canon of Scripture was not then 
written when St. Paul wrote this epistle to the Romans; 
neither did he then prescribe to them any form of doctrine 
in writing, before he wrote this epistle ; neither did he then 
speak of that form of doctrine which they were to receive 
many years after ; therefore he only meant that form of doc- 
trine which was then taught to several countries by word of 
mouth ; and it is for keeping this kind of doctrine, so taught, 
he speaks thus to the Corinthians : " Now I praise you, breth- 
ren, that you keep the traditions, (your ministers make you 
read the word ordinances,) as I delivered them to you." 
1 Cor. c. 11, v. 2. And he recommends most earnestly to 
Timothy to keep these traditions, as you may see by the fol- 
lowing texts: 1 Tim. c. 6, v. 20. 2 Tim. c. 1, v. 13, c. 2, 
v. 2, c. 3, v. 14. But since you reject this apostolic tradition, 
J beseech you, show me some text of Scripture which de« 



166 

clares that Christ commanded his apostles, before his ascen- 
sion, to write the New Testament, that it might be hereafter 
as a rule of faith to true believers ; or show me some of his 
own writings, delivered to them who then believed in him. 
Truly all the diligence you can employ will never be sufficient 
to show either of these things ; but I can show you by clear 
Scripture that the gospel was taught before a word of the 
New Testament was written, as these following texts do tes- 
tify: Matt. c. 4, v. 23, c. 9, v. 35. Mark, c. 1, v. 14. 

9. Now, brother, I would fain know what fundamental 
reason you can give me for denying that the doctrine of the 
gospel, so taught by the mouth of Christ and his apostles, 
could be faithfully delivered to us by our ancestors, even 
as they received it from their predecessors, and so upwards 
to the very apostles. Surely the Church of Christ could be 
as faithful a messenger, for all preceding ages, in delivering 
this doctrine, as she was in delivering the fore-mentioned 
points, (No. 7 ;) and as faithful as she was in delivering the 
Scripture without corrupting it ; and as faithful a messenger 
as the Church was, in the law of nature, in delivering not only 
certain points, but all her doctrine, only by tradition ; for 
from the creation of the world to Moses' days, being two 
thousand four hundred and odd years, there was no Scripture 
at all ; and during that long time, the unwritten word of God 
was all the rule of faith that true believers had ; and by this 
tradition they knew that " God blessed the seventh day, 
and sanctified it." Gen. c. 2, v. 3. So all of them held, and 
believed themselves to be obliged to keep the Sabbath : by this 
tradition, they knew all the distinction of beasts, " clean and 
unclean." Gen. c. 7, v. 2. And by this tradition they knew 
they were obliged not to eat the flesh with the blood. Gen. c. 9, 
v. 4. They knew, by the same tradition, that tithes were to 
be paid to the priests. Gen. c. 14, v. 20. By tradition alone 
they knew the fall of Adam ; their future redemption by the 
coming of the Messiah ; they knew also by tradition the 
reward of good works, and the punishment of evil ; and from 
the time of Abraham until the written law, being four hun- 
dred p"^ ^^ vo* r <a they knew by tradition only the r>™"~~> 



167 

of circumcision, (Gen. c. 17, v. 10,) and observed it most 
strictly : nay, even after the law of Moses was written, though 
the Gentiles had it not, yet many of them retained the true 
faith, as appears by the book of Job; and even among the 
Jews, after they received the law written, they knew several 
necessary points only by tradition, viz., the remedy for 
original sin for male children that died before the eighth day, 
and for female children at all times : it was also by tradition 
they knew that all the virtue that sacrifice had to take away sin 
was from the blood of the Redeemer to come. Seeing there- 
fore, that neither of those churches, in the law of nature, or 
in the written law, was fallible, in proposing true tradition, 
nor so much as liable to propose false doctrine by that tradi- 
tion, why may not now the Church of Christ have that pre- 
rogative in the law of grace? and as the observance of some 
particular traditions in the law of Moses was not an unlawful 
addition thereunto, why now should the observance of some 
particular traditions (which are not against the word of God) 
be called by you an unlawful addition to the law of grace? 
seeing the same law commands the people to make use of 
tradition ; and " if you reply, saying that we are admonished, 
by the law of grace, not to be deceived by a new and false 
doctrine, and that therefore we ought not to add any manner 
of discipline, or to believe any thing which is not contained 
in the word of God,' 5 I answer, that those of the law of 
Moses were likewise admonished, as appears, Deut. c. 4, v. 2, 
Isa. c. 29, v. 13. Yet this hindered them not from believing 
by tradition the aforesaid points ; nay, it hindered them not 
from adding more precepts which were not prescribed to 
them by the law ; for after the " children of Israel had kept, 
according to the law, the solemnity of Azymes seven days, 
the whole multitude took counsel to keep other seven days ; 
then the priest and Levites arose, and blessed the people, and 
their voice was heard, and their prayers came up to his holy 
dwelling-place, even unto heaven." 2 Chron. c. 30, v. 21, 
23, 27. You see, by these last words, that this addition 
pleased God, and you have such another example in the book 



168 

of Esther, (c. 9, v. 20, &,c.,) where we read that the Jews, 
by the advice of Mordecai, obliged themselves and their suc- 
cessors to keep two holy days yearly. Behold here both an 
addition to the Jewish law and a tradition ; and so was the 
dedication of the altar which was observed eight days every 
year, as may be seen in the first book of Machabees, c. 4, 
v. 56. Yet it was not displeasing to God ; for if it had been, 
Christ would not have kept it. John, c. 10, v. 22. You have 
seen now, brother, how lawfully the Jewish church instituted 
the aforesaid solemnities, which were not observed by their 
predecessors ; and yet you do not consider how unjustly you 
accuse the Catholic Church for instituting holy days for the 
service of Almighty God. 

10. It manifestly appears how blindly you are led by the 
persuasion of your ministers, " who do bid you follow their 
own directions, and that they will show you, with your own 
eyes, the word of God favoring all their doctrine, and that 
you may thereby judge for yourself, and not to take your re- 
ligion upon trust, as the Papists do ; " for it evidently appears 
that all these fair promises of theirs are but stuff and entirely 
false, because they are not able to produce as much as one 
single text of clear and uncorrupted Scripture, to prove their 
new notions in any of these points which I have handled 
hitherto ; so that you may hereby plainly perceive that it is 
yourselves that take your religion upon trust ; for you receive 
your English Bible for the true original word of God, upon 
the authority of your translators, who " declare unto you that 
they have no translation here in all Europe, which is of di- 
vine and infallible authority," (as you have seen in the 4th 
paragraph of this section.) You receive also that interpretation 
for true which your ministers tell you, though they acknowl- 
edge that themselves are fallible in this interpretation, as well 
as in all other matters. You see, therefore, by this, that it is 
yourselves that take your religion upon trust, which is subject 
to errors and mistakes, as your own chief ringleaders confess. 
As for us, we rely upon the authority of the Catholic Church, 
which is infallible, (as I will show hereafter, sec. 25, 26, 27 ;) 



169 

and hence we follow the unanimous tradition of the gov- 
ernors of this Church, to whom the apostles delivered all the 
important points of our faith, as well by word of mouth as by 
daily practice corresponding thereunto, commanding them to 
deliver the same points successively to their successors ; and 
hence what was taught and practised in the first ages by the 
apostles and their disciples, the same doctrine is substantially 
delivered down from age to age by our ancestors, till the pres- 
ent time ; and agreeably to this tradition we are sure we be- 
lieve with as good ground as all true believers did for the 
first two thousand four hundred and odd years after the cre- 
ation of the world, before any Scripture was written ; and 
likewise as Job and other Gentiles always believed, without 
having any Scripture at all ; and as the Jews believed still 
some points only by tradition, after the law was written, (see 
No. 9;) and finally, with as much ground as the numerous 
nations converted by the disciples of the apostles and their 
immediate successors, believed, though the most part of them 
never had so much as seen the Scripture, but wholly relied, 
in all their belief, upon what was announced to them by the 
mouths of the first preachers ; and what was then by tradi- 
tion made so evidently credible to those true believers ought 
now to be embraced by us, since it is as far from all possibili- 
ty of being false as the word of God itself, because what the 
apostles (after receiving the Holy Ghost) taught by word of 
mouth, is as infallibly true as what they wrote with pen and 
ink ; and if you will give credit to the authority of the holy 
fathers, they will tell you that the apostles had left us certain 
points to be believed by tradition ; for St. Denis, disciple to 
St. Paul, says thus, (lib-, de Eccles. Hier. c. 1, speaking of 
the apostles :) " These first chiefs of the priesthood deliver to 
us the greatest and most substantial points, partly in icritten, 
and partly in unwritten instituentsT St. Chrysostom (in 
his commentary on that of St. Paul, 2 Thess. c. 2) says, also, 
" It is manifest that the apostles did not deliver unto us all 
things in writing, but many things without writing ; and these 
are worthy of the very same faiths St. Epiphanius says 
15 



170 

likewise, (Heresy, 61,) "It beJwves us also to follow tradition, 
because all things cannot be had from the Scripture : the 
apostles delivered some things in writing, and some things 
by tradition, as St. Paul says, ' According as I have delivered 
unto you,' " &c. You see, by these two last authorities of the 
holy fathers, how clearly one of them writes in his commentary 
on the epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians ; and the other 
produces St. Paul's authority to prove the lawfulness of tradition. 
11. The tradition which you see so clearly mentioned by 
the holy fathers is that which the Scripture commands us to 
hold ; and we call it apostolic tradition, because the apostles 
taught it only by word of mouth to the first believers, who 
likewise delivered the same to their own successors, and so 
came down from father to son in all ages to us ; and hence, 
as this tradition tells us that the same God, who revealed by 
his apostles, so many other lights to his church, (viz.,) " that 
she was to be heard as the mistress of truth, with whom he 
would ever continue to teach her all truth, and never permit 
the gates of hell to prevail against her," &c, (see the next 
section,) had also revealed the truth of her infallibility in pro- 
posing any point of divine faith, as we see that she always 
proposed her traditions for divine truths received from God, 
it could not but be evidently credible to us, that God had re- 
vealed the infallibility of his church, and consequently the 
unquestionable truth of such traditions as she proposes for 
divine truth ; and hence we believe the Scripture to be the 
word of God, because the Church (which we believe to be in- 
fallible) tells us so; * and we believe the Church to be infalli- 
ble, by her traditions delivered to her by the apostles before 

* This was also the ground on which St. Augustine based his 
belief in the authenticity of the Scriptures, as the following answer 
which he gives to the Manicheans clearly proves : If you met a man 
who did not as yet believe the gospel, what would yoii do, if he sho7ild 
tell you, I do not believe it ? For I myself would not believe the 

GOSPEL EXCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC ChURCH HAD 

moved me to it. St. Augustine, lib. uno contra Epistolam Funda- 
menti, cap. 5. — Ed 



171 

any Scripture was written ; and we believe tradition by its own 
credibility ; and we give all the firm assent to what the whole 
Church by her tradition proposes to us as the true word of 
God ; our understanding adheres so immovably to this, that 
the testimony of an angel would not persuade us it is false. 
Gal. c. 1, v. 8. For we receive it, "not as the precepts of 
men, (as you falsely assert,) but as it is in truth the word of 
God, according to that of St. Paul, saying, Ye received the 
word of God, which ye heard of us ; ye received it not as the 
word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, which 
effectually worketh also in you that believe." I Thess. c. 2, 
v. 13. You see, by this discourse, we have reason to say that 
it is imprudent and impious not to yield all possible submis- 
sion of understanding to what is proposed as the true word 
of God by the unanimous tradition of the whole Church ; for 
many have been damned for not believing the Church before 
the Old Testament was written in the law of nature ; and 
several others were damned for not believing in Christ, and 
his church, before the finishing of the New Testament, in the 
law of grace. 

12. If you inquire how we can distinguish true from false 
tradition, I answer, that when a doubt begins to arise in the 
Church concerning any tradition, we then call a general 
council, in order to examine, first the prelates, whose countries 
being so far distant and quite independent of one another, 
that they could not possibly, without known opposition, re- 
ceive the same tradition from any other hand, but from that 
from which they received the whole faith ; and hence we most 
strictly examine all those prelates of different provinces and 
nations concerning the old approved customs of their respec- 
tive countries, and institute an inquiry concerning the anti- 
quity and universality of the tradition under debate ; and 
finding in this inquiry a unanimous consent of all kind of 
testimonies, from all parts of the whole world, it is then de- 
clared by them, juridically, that such a point has come down 
to them by a true apostolic tradition, and therefore is as a true 
object of divine faith ; it is the word of God, delivered to us 



172 

by as faithful a conveyance as the very copies of the Scripture ; 
and when we say that we equalize tradition to Scripture, we 
mean nothing else but that we hold the unwritten word of 
God, delivered by tradition, to be as true as any written word 
of God can be, and consequently ought to be believed by 
us, as well as the written word of God, seeing both were 
equally delivered by the apostles to the first believers, and so 
came down to us from age to age, even as the Scripture itself; 
and we know that it was as much in the power of the Church 
to have thrust into our hand, in any of those ages, a false copy 
of the Scripture instead of the true, as to impose a false tradi- 
tion on all true believers, instead of a true one. By this you 
may see with what good grounds we believe and receive 
apostolic tradition. 

13. Notwithstanding the truth of what I have told you 
concerning diligent proceedings of our general councils 
against all novel doctrines, yet I know that those of your 
religion commonly allege that Roman Catholics first intro- 
duced different points by the decrees of different councils. 
But to convince the authors of these calumnies, I only in- 
quire, does the decree of the word Homousion (first intro- 
duced by the general council of Nice against the Arians) 
argue that the doctrine signified by that word is false, and 
that it was first introduced by the Nicene council, in the 
year 325? If they answer, that it argues its falsehood, 
then they deny the second person of the Trinity to he from 
eternity, and consequently deny that the Holy Ghost pro- 
ceeds from the Son, which is both false and contrary to their 
own principles, whereby they admit the Nicene Creed, and 
that of St. Athanasius, of which the Protestants make use 
in their Book of Common Prayer ; but if they answer, that it 
does not argue that, then I reply, why are they so uncharita- 
ble as to calumniate us, by alleging that the doctrine ex- 
pressed by the word transubstantiation was first introduced 
by us in the council of Lateran? for they have no manner of 
ground for this assertion, but that this council made use of the 
word transubstantiation even as the council of Nice made 



173 

use of the word homousion. I would also fain know, from 
those calumniators, whether it be lawful to infer that the 
Holy Ghost is not God, and whether he was ever be- 
lieved to be God until the year 373, because it was then 
Pope Damasus first decreed the contrary, by a council held 
at Rome against the Eunomian heresy, which impiously 
taught that doctrine. Is it lawful to infer that there are not 
two natures in Christ, and that they were never believed until 
the year 451, because it was then Pope Leo convened tlje 
general council of Chalcedon, which first decreed the con- 
trary against the Eutychian heresy ? Is it lawful to infer that 
the Church hath no power to forgive sins committed after bap- 
tism, and that she was never believed to have had that power 
until the year 252, because it was then the council of Car- 
thage first decreed the contrary against the Novatian heresy ? 
I would show you, brother, several other examples of this 
kind, if I had not supposed that the aforesaid were quite suffi- 
cient; for as the decrees of all these councils, assembled at 
different times, neither argue the falsity nor the novelty of 
the aforesaid points, whose truth these councils have defined 
against the erroneous opinions of the fore-mentioned heretics, 
even so the decrees of other councils, lawfully assembled by 
the same Church, do not argue the falsity or novelty of what 
points they also declared to be true, against the erroneous 
opinions of other heretics, who started up either before or 
after the former heretics ; and hence it evidently appears how 
wrongfully the Roman Catholics are accused by Protestants, 
who allege that we first introduced such a point of doctrine 
by the decree of such a pope, or such a council ; whereas 
they ought rather to infer the contrary ; for the most holy and 
learned fathers of these councils would never endanger their 
own salvation by taking on their consciences to declare such 
or such a point to be true, if they had not, after great exami- 
nation and mature deliberation, found out evidently, by all 
true testimonies and antiquity, that such points were believed 
always so by their ancestors, in every age since the apostles' 
time, in which they were so taught, by those who first 
15 * 



174 

preached these doctrines by word of mouth ; and they would 
always be so kept in practice without any declarations of 
councils, if the contrary doctrine had not been taught by 
some new heretics revolting from the Church ; hence it fol- 
lows that such heretics were the sole occasion of what the 
councils had decreed concerning these points, as you may 
manifestly see in the acts of the same councils, of which I 
shall treat hereafter, sec. 28, No. 3. 



SECTION XXV. 
Of the Perpetuity and Infallibility of the true Church. 

1. Whereas the prophet foretold, in these words, that the 
Church would never forsake the true doctrine of Christ, (Isa. 
c. 59, v. 20, &-c.,) " There shall come a Redeemer to Sion, 
and to them that shall return from iniquity in Jacob, saith 
our Lord; as for me, this is my covenant with them. My 
spirit, that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy 
mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor cut of the 
mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, 
from this present and forever." " No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " that was not your covenant with them ; 
otherwise our learned Mr. Fox would not have said (in his 
Acts and Monuments, p. 85) that all the world was in a most 
desperate and vile state, and that lamentable ignorance and 
darkness of God's truth had overshadowed the whole earth, 
when John WicklifF stepped forth as a morning star in the 
midst of a cloud, the year one thousand three hundred and 
seventy-one." 

2. Whereas the Scripture declares to the Church of Christ, 
(Isa. c. 60, v. 15, 18, &c.,) " I will make thee an eternal 
excellency, a joy unto many generations : iniquity shall be no 
more heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction in thy bor- 
ders; but salvation shall occupy thy walls, and praise thy 



175 

gates; they shall have the sun no more, to shine by day, 
neither shall the brightness of the moon lighten thee, but the 
Lord shall be unto thee for an everlasting light, and thy God 
for thy glory ; thy sun shall no more go down, and thy moon 
shall not be diminished, because the Lord shall be unto thee 
for an everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall 
be ended." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
" the Lord was not an everlasting light to the Christian church ; 
for our Mr. Fulke (in his Answer to a Counterfeit Catholic, 
p. 35) says that ' the true church decayed immediately after 
the apostles' time.' " 

3. Whereas the Scripture says of the Church of Christ, 
(Isa. c. 62, v. 3, &c.,) " Thou shalt also be a crown of glory 
in the land of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of 
thy God ; thou shalt no more be called forsaken, neither shall 
thy land be called desolate." " No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, "that cannot be true, for God hath forsaken 
his church long ago ; and it is therefore our Mr. Barkins says 
(in his exposition on the creed, p. 400) that before the days 
of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, a universal 
apostasy from the faith had overspread the whole face of the 
earth, and that our church was not then visible to the world." 
Indeed, brother, I acknowledge these last words of Mr. Bar- 
kins are true ; yet the falsehood of his former allegations 
evidently appears, as you may further perceive by the twelfth 
verse of the aforesaid chapter, which says thus of the Church 
of Christ : " Thou shalt be called a city sought for, and not 
forsaken." But if we believe your principles, we must say 
that the Church was not for the space of a thousand years a 
city sought for, but a city entirely forsaken by all men, and 
sought not for by any man during all that time. 

4. Whereas the Scripture says of the Church of Christ, 
(Jeremiah, c. 32, v. 38, &c.,) " And they shall be my people, 
and I will be their God, and I will give them one heart and 
one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, 
and for their children after them ; and I will make an ever- 
lasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from 



176 

them to do them good, but I will put my fear in their hearts, 
that they shall not depart from me." " No, no," say the Prot- 
estant and Presbyterian, " you never gave them one heart nor 
one way, neither was your covenant everlasting with them, 
nor your fear in their hearts, and since they have departed from 
you fourteen hundred years before Luther came to reform 
the gospel ; for our Mr. Napper says (on the Revelations, 
p. 191) that during even the second and third age after 
Christ, the true Temple of God and light of the gospel was 
obscured by the Roman Antichrist, that is, by the pope of 
Rome." 

5. Whereas the Scripture says of the Church of Christ, 
(Dan. c. 2, v. 44,) " And in the days of these kings shall the 
God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be de- 
stroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but 
it shall break in pieces, and consume all these kingdoms, and 
it shall stand forever." " No, no," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, "your kingdom did not. stand forever, nor any 
considerable time ; for our Simon de Voyon (in his dis- 
course on the catalogue of doctors, epistle to the reader) 
affirms that your kingdom was overthrown in the year six 
hundred and five, when Pope Boniface was installed in his 
papal throne : then falsehood got the victory : then was the 
whole world overwhelmed in the dregs of antichristian filthi- 
ness, abominable superstition, and traditions of the pope ; then 
was the universal apostasy from the faith." 

6. Whereas the Scripture says of the Church of Christ, 
(Ezek. c. 37, v. 25, &c.,) " They shall dwell in the land 

that I have given unto Jacob my servant even they and 

their children forever ; and I will place them, and I will mul- 
tiply them, and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them 
forevermore : my tabernacle also shall be with them ; yea, I 
will be their God, and they shall be my people." " No, no," 
say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " they were not your 
people, neither was your sanctuary in the midst of them; 
for our Mr. Whitaker says (in his book against Bellarmin, 
con. 2, q. 4, p. 223) that the whole church, not only the 



177 

common sort of Christians, but also even the apostles, erred, 
both in faith and manners, even after Christ's ascension, and 
the Holy Ghost's descent upon them." 

7. Whereas the Scripture says, speaking of the Church 
of Christ, (Psalm 72, v. 7,) " In his days shall the right- 
eous flourish, and abundance of peace, so long as the moon 
endureth." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
" your righteous did not flourish half so long ; for our Mr. 
Whitaker says (Respon. ad Rat. Campiani, rat. 3, p. 48) 
that the mystery of iniquity had gone through all parts of 
the Church, and so at last possessed the whole Church." I 
beseech you, brother, to consider how directly your doctrine 
contradicts here the express word of God, which further 
declares (in the following texts) that perpetual covenant that 
was promised to be made with Christ's Church : " I have 
made (saith God) a covenant with my chosen ; I have sworn 
to David my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and I 
will build up thy throne to all generations. Psalm 89, v. 3, 4. 
That this promise was to be fulfilled in favor of Christ, you 
may plainly perceive by what the angel Gabriel says of 
Christ : " And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne 
of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of 
Jacob forever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." 
Luke, c. 1, v. 32, 33. And lest any one should presume to 
say that all the aforesaid promises of everlasting perpetuity, 
made to the Church of Christ, would be made void by any 
sins of hers, or on condition of her walking in God's com- 
mandments, hence I shall produce these words of the 
prophet David, which clearly convict this evasion: "I will 
make him, saith God, my first born, higher than the kings of 
the earth ; my mercy will I keep for him forevermore, and 
my covenant shall stand fast with him ; his seed also will I 
make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven ; 
but if his children shall forsake my law, and will not walk in 
my judgment, if they will profane my justices, and not keep 
my commandments, I shall visit their iniquities with a rod, 
and their sins with stripes ; but my loving-kindness I will not 



178 

take away from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail ; my 
covenant I will not break, nor the thing which is gone out 
of my lips once. I have sworn in my holiness, if I lie to 
David, his seed shall continue forever, and his throne as the 
sun in my sight, and as the moon perfect forever." Psalm 89, 
v. 27, &/C You may now evidently perceive, by these words 
of pure Scripture, that all the former promises were only 
made to the Church of Christ, whom the word of God tells 
you " to be the Son of David, the Son of Abraham," &c. 
Matt. c. 1, v. 1. St. Paul affirms that those only of the Church 
of Christ are the true children of Israel and Abraham, " to 
whom, saith he, pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and 
the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the service of 
God, and the promises." Rom. c. 9, v. 4, 6, &»c. This truth 
is further confirmed by the ensuing texts, which clearly show 
that all the former promises made to the Church of Christ in 
the old law were again made to the same Church in the law 
of grace. 

8. Whereas Christ himself said to the apostle, (Matt. c. 16, 
v. 18,) " And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell 
shall not prevail against it." " No, no, Christ," say the Prot- 
estant and Presbyterian, " you are mistaken here, for the gates 
of hell have prevailed against your Church already ; for our 
Mr. Brocard affirms (in his treatise on the Revelations, p. 110) 
that the Church was trodden down, and oppressed by the pa- 
pacy, from the time of Pope Sylvester till the coming of Lu- 
ther ; that is, during the space of one thousand two hundred 
and sixty years. 

9. Whereas Christ said to his apostles, (Matt. c. 28, v. 19, 
20,) " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I com- 
manded you ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end 
of the world." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presby- 
terian, " you have not performed your promise herein ; for if 
you had, our Mr. Downham would not have said (in his 



179 

treatise of Antichrist, lib. 2, c. 2, p. 25) that the general de- 
fection of the Church began to work in the very apostles' 
time." 

10. Whereas Christ said, (John, c. 14, v. 16, 17, 26,) " I 
will pray my Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, 
that he may abide with you forever ; even the Spirit of truth, 
whom the world cannot receive, the Comforter, which is the 
Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name ; he shall 
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, 
whatsoever I have said unto you." " No, no," say the Prot- 
estant and Presbyterian, " that Spirit of truth did not abide 
long in your Church, for it was expelled by the spirit of error ; 
and hence our Catechism against Popery affirms (p. 17) that 
there is no particular church to be found which from the 
apostles' time till now has persisted in her purity." 

11. Whereas Christ said, (John, c. 16, v. 7, 8, 13,) " It is 
expedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away the 
Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart I will send 
him unto you ; and when he is come, he will reprove the 
world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ; how- 
beit, when the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into 
all truth." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
that Spirit did not guide the world into all truth, until of late, 
when our Luther and Calvin came to reform the gospel ; and 
hence our Benedict Morgenstern says (Tract, de Eccles. 
p. 145) that it is manifest to the whole Christian world, 
that, before Luther's time, all churches were overwhelmed 
with more than chimerical darkness, and that Luther was di- 
vinely raised up to discover the same." 

12. Whereas St. Paul says, (1 Tim. c. 3, v. 14, 15,) " These 

things I write unto thee that thou mayest know how 

thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is 
the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth." 
" No, no, Paul, you are mistaken here," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " for if the Church of Christ had been the 
pillar and ground of truth, our confession of faith would not 
say (p. 75) that the purest churches under heaven are sub- 



180 

ject both to mixture and error." Indeed, brother, it evi- 
dently appears, by your doctrine, that your learned ministers 
did not consult with St. Paul, when they composed that con- 
fession of faith; for it expressly contradicts what St. Paul 
plainly affirms, not only in the former, but also in the follow- 
ing text : " Christ gave himself for his church, that he might 
sanctify her, cleansing her by the laver of water, in the word, 
that he might present her to himself, a glorious church, not 
having spot or wrinkle, but that she might be holy and with- 
out blemish." Ephes. c. 5, v. 25, &dc. If, therefore, " all 
churches under heaven be subject both to mixture and error," 
as your confession of faith alleges, pray let me know what 
became of that glorious church, which was, in St. Paul's time, 
" the pillar and ground of truth, having neither spot nor 
wrinkle." Could this church become the mistress of lies and 
damnable errors ? Was it for this end Christ gave her those 
infallible pastors and teachers, of whom St. Paul makes men- 
tion in the ensuing text? "And he gave some apostles, and 
some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and 
teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the 
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come 
in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of 
God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of 
the fulness of Christ, (observe what follows,) that we hence- 
forth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried 
about with every wind of doctrine, by sleight of men, and 
cunning craftiness, whereby they lay in wait to deceive." 
Ephes. c. 4, v. 11, &lc. These last words clearly evince that the 
end and intention of Christ, in giving those governors to his 
Church, was such an end, and such an intention, as could not 
be attained by giving her such guides and instructors as 
were merely fallible, when they were legally assembled to de- 
liver the truth ; for if these governors even then had been 
liable to broach gross errors, and publish for divine truths, 
Christ would not obtain the end for which he gave those gov- 
ernors and preachers to his Church ; for how pitifully would 
they perform their duty, if they became obtruders of gross 



181 

and intolerable errors ! How could the work of the ministry 
be edified by misinterpreted of Christ's gospel ? It is not 
by the instruction of false teachers that the people " were to 
be no more tossed to and fro, nor carried about with every 
wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men," &,c, because the 
performance of this must in this passage proceed from the in- 
struction of true and infallible pastors and teachers ; and St. 
Paul expressly declares that Christ hath given to his own 
Church such pastors and teachers as were to continue always 
in succession till the day of judgment, at which time we are 
all to meet "in the measure of the stature of the fulness of 
Christ's age," that is, at the age of thirty-three years ; and 
until we all meet in that age, and in the unity of one faith, 
(which has not happened as yet,) these true pastors and teach- 
ers were still to continue in the Church of Christ, if you be- 
lieve the words of St. Paul. 

13. You have seen now, by clear Scripture, (No. 8, 10, 
&,c.,) that, in the apostles' time, the Church of Christ was a 
holy and glorious Church, which had neither spot nor wrinkle, 
but was without blemish, the pillar and ground of truth, a most 
firm rock, against which the gates of hell could not prevail, 
having true pastors and teachers, assisted by the Holy Ghost, 
still directing them to deliver true doctrine ; but all these 
qualities were truly verified of the Church of Christ in the 
first age ; the same were also verified of her in the second age, 
in the third, in the fourth, in the fifth, in the sixth, in the 
seventh, and in the eighth age, and so down to the present 
age, for in all ages, to the consummation of the world, she 
was promised to be protected by the Father, (as you have seen 
here, No. 1, 2, &c.,) to be assisted by the Son, (as you have 
seen, No. 8, 9,) and governed by the Holy Ghost, (as you 
have seen, No. 10, 11, 12.) Therefore the Church of Christ 
could never swerve from that true faith which she had once 
received. 

[In addition to the foregoing overwhelming scriptural evi- 
dence of the Church's infallibility , a few passages from the 
writings of the fathers may not be inappropriate, in order to 
16 



182 

show the harmonious coincidence between them and the 
Catholic Church of the present time. St. Gregory the Great, 
in the end of his letter to the patriarch of Constantinople, 
and the three patriarchs of the eastern churches, (Epistola 
24, Indict. 9,) says, " As I reverence the four books of the 
gospel, so I do prof ess to receive and reverence the four coun- 
cils ; viz., the Nicean, in which the perverse doctrine of 
Arius is destroyed ; the Const antinopolit an also, in which 
the error of Eunomius and Macedonius is condemned; in 
like manner the first council of Ephesus, in which the impiety 
of Nestorius is adjudged. Finally, the council of Chalcedon, 
in which the pravity of Eutyches and Dioscorus is reproved, 
I embrace with all devotion." I presume St. Gregory believed 
the Gospels to be infallible in their doctrines. 

St. Irenaeus uses the following words, (lib. 3, c. 4 :) " Truth 
is not to be sought from others, which you have easily from the 
Church; with whom the apostles have fully deposited all truth, 
so that whoever desires it may have from it the living waters." 

This cannot be said of a church that is capable of leading 
her children into error. For a church that can err has not 
all truth deposited with her. St. Cyprian, who lived in the 
third century, commenting on the 6th c. and 68th v. of the 
Gospel of St. John, writes thus, (Epist. 69, Floren. Papin. :) 
" Peter speaks there, upon whom the Church was built, declar- 
ing in the name of the Church, that though great numbers of 
such stubborn and self-willed people as will not submit become 
deserters, yet the Church doth not depart from Christ : 
which Church is the people united to the priest, and the 
flock following their pastor." 

Again, lab. de Unit. Eccles., he says, " Take away a ray 
from the body of the sun : unity will not bear a division of the 
light. Break a bough from a tree : being broken it cannot 
bud. Cut off a rivulet from the fountain: being cut off it 
drys up. Just so the Church, having received the light of 
Christ, spreads its rays through the whole world; yet it is 
one light which is thus diffused. Neither is the unity of the 
body divided. By her fertility, her branches reach over the 



183 

earth, and every place is watered by her copious streams ; yet 
there is but one head, and one fountain, one mother rich in 
her numerous issue. By her fruitj nines s we are born ; we are 
nourished with her milk, and we are enlivened by her spirit. 
The Spouse of Christ cannot be an adulteress. She is 
uncorrupted and pure. She knows but one spouse, and with 
a chaste modesty preserves the sanctity of one chamber : she it 
is that preserves us for God, and assigns a kingdom to those 
whom she has begotten." 

The reader has, in the foregoing, evidence of the most un- 
questionable character to show that the doctrine of infallibility 
(against which there is so much vapid declamation at the 
present time) was believed in the very days of St. Cyprian, 
precisely as it is believed by the Catholic Church at the pres- 
ent day. 

St. Cyril of Alexandria, who lived in the early part of the 
fifth century, {Dial, de Trin. lib. 4,) writes thus : " He gave 
the name of the rock to nothing else but the unshaken and 
constant faith of the disciple; on which the Church of Christ 
is so settled and established as never to fall, but to bear up 
against the gates of hell, and so to remain forever." 

St. Augustine, commenting on the 4th v. of the 57th Psalm, 
speaketh thus of the Church : " Did they therefore go astray 
because they spake lies 1 Or rather have they not spoken lies 
because they were gone astray from the womb ? For it is in 
the womb of the Church that truth remains. Whosoever is 
separated from this womb of the Church must of necessity 
speak lies. I say he must of necessity speak lies ; for either 
he would not be conceived, or, being conceived, was cast out 
by the Church." 

Again, in his commentary on the 23d verse of the 101st 
Psalm, he says, "But that Church which was spread through- 
out all nations now has no longer a being. It is quite lost. 
This is the cry of those who are not in the Church. O, im- 
pudent clamor ! She is not, because you do not belo?ig to her. 
Beware you have not, for that reason, lost your own being. 
For she icill have a being though you have none. This abom- 
inable and accursed calumny, full of presumption and deceit, 



184 

void of all truth, wisdom, and reason, false, rash, and perni- 
cious, the Spirit of God foresaw, when even, as it were, 
against them he proclaimed her unity, in assembling the peo- 
ple in one, and kingdoms to serve the Lord; because there 
were to arise some that would say against her, * It is true she 
was, but now she is perished.' (Precisely what the sectaries 
say of her in our day.) Show me, says she, the fewness of my 
days. I do not inquire for my days in the next world; those are 
without end. It is not these days of eternity I inquire after ; 
I desire to know the continuance of my days in the world. 
These days I desire you to show me. Neither was the answer 
insignificant. And who was it that answered me ? He that 
is the very way — Ego sum via, Veritas, et vita. And what 
was the information he gave me ? Behold, I am with vou 

TO THE END OF THE WORLD." 

And again, (Serm. ad Symb. de Catech. :) " After a profes- 
sion of the Trinity follows the Holy Church. Here is 
shown God and his temple. For the temple of God is holy, 
which temple, saith the apostle, ye are. This is the Holy 
Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic 
Church, which fights against all heresies. Fight she may, but 
she cannot be foiled. All heresies have gone out from her, 
like useless branches lopped off from the vine ; but she remains 
in her root, in her vine, in her charity. The gates of hell 
shall not overcome her." He that is not convinced of the 
truth of the infallibility of the Catholic Church after a care- 
ful and unprejudiced perusal of the foregoing irresistible and 
unanimous testimony of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evan- 
gelists, and fathers, " neither would he believe though cne 
were to rise again from the dead."]* 

* All the foregoing extracts from the primitive fathers, which are 
enclosed in brackets, have been translated from the originals by the 
learned and scholastic Dr. Cornelius Nary, in a masterly defence 
of the Catholic Church, entitled, " A Reply to the Charitable Address 
of the Archbishop of Tuam," written in 1728, from which they are 
copied verbatim. The work being inaccessible to the public, I con- 
sidered their insertion in this edition appropriate and useful. — Ed. 



185 

SECTION XXVI. 

The Universality and Visibility of the Church of Christ. 

1. Whereas the prophet says of the Church of Christ, 
(Isa. c. 2, v. 2, &/C.,) " Arid it shall come to pass in the last 
days," (the New Testament is called the last days, 1 John, 
c. 2, v. 18,) " that the mountain of the Lord's house shall 
be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be ex- 
alted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it, and 
many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to 
the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, 
and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths ; 
for out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord 
from Jerusalem." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presby- 
terian, " the law and the word of the Lord came not unto us 
from Sion or Jerusalem, but from Wittenberg and Geneva, 
because it was in these places our first apostles, Luther and 
Calvin, began to reform the gospel, which was before un- 
known to the whole world. And hence our Benedict Mor- 
genstern says (Tract, de Eccles. p. 145) that it is mani- 
fest to the whole Christian world, that before Luther's time 
all churches were overwhelmed with more than chimerical 
darkness, and that Luther was divinely raised up to discover 
the same." 

2. Whereas the Scripture says of the Church of Christ, 
(Isa. c. 49, v. 6, 7, 10, 18, &c.,) " And I will also give thee 
for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation 
even to the farthest part of the earth; kings shall see, and 
princes shall rise and adore, for our Lord's sake : they shall 
not hunger nor thirst. Behold, these shall come from far, 
and behold, they from the north, and the sea, and these 
from the south countries — lift up their eyes round about, and 
see all these are gathered together ; they are come to thee, — 
thy deserts and thy solitary places, (in which nobody before 
served God;) and the land of the ruin shall now be straight, 

16* 



186 

by reason of the inhabitants — behold, I will lift up my hand 
to the Gentiles, and to the people ; I will exalt my sign, and 
they shall carry thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters 
upon their shoulders, and kings shall be thy nursing fathers, 
and queens thy nurses ; with a countenance cast down towards 
the ground they shall adore thee." " No, no," say the Protes- 
tant and Presbyterian, " the church of Christ ought not to 
come to that height of universality, or visibility, that she 
would be light to the Gentiles, or convert them ; for if that 
had been some of her properties, we could never pretend that 
ourselves have the true church of Christ ; because we can never 
make out that hitherto any of our own churches had ever con- 
verted the Gentiles to the Christian faith." Indeed, brother, 
you have great reason to answer in this manner, for I defy all 
the wit in your head to show me one kingdom or nation that 
you have converted from paganism to the Christian faith ; for 
all that both your churches could do herein was to persuade 
some Roman Catholics, in the beginning of your deformation, 
to embrace Christian liberty, as you term it, and not to be 
subject to the yoke of Popery ; and so from Roman Catholics 
they became Protestants and Presbyterians, because they 
found their discipline more easy and pleasant for their bodies 
than that of the Catholic Church, which obliges the people to 
confess their sins, to fast, and to mortify themselves with 
several other kind of austerities, according, to that of St. Paul, 
Colcss. c. 3, v. 5. 

3. Whereas the Scripture says of the Church of Christ, 
(Isa. c. 69, v. 3, 10, &c.,) " And the Gentiles shall come to 
thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising, and the 
sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings 
shall minister unto thee ; therefore thy gates shall be open 
continually ; they shall not be shut, day nor night, that men 
may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their 
kings may be brought ; for the nation and kingdom that will 
not serve thee shall perish." "No, no," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, " the church of Christ ought net to be always so 
visible to the world, neither ought her gates to be continually 



187 

open ; and hence the author of our Protestant book (entitled 
Antichrist us, p. 13) says that the gospel had never open 
passage from the apostles' time until Luther came to preach 
it." Truly, brother, this is not what the prophet foretold of 
Christ's true Church ; but that her gates should be contin- 
ually open, day and night, to the end that all people might 
embrace her doctrine, and the nation and kingdom that would 
not embrace it should perish ; not temporally in this world, 
in which they often flourish, but eternally in the world to 
come ; but it would never be damnable to any nation or king- 
dom not to submit to an invisible church : therefore there 
must be always a visible Church on earth, which all nations 
and kingdoms, under pain of eternal damnation, are obliged 
to obey, when they labor under no invincible ignorance, 
which very few can pretend to have now-a-days: witness that 
of St. Paul, saying thus of the preachers of the gospel : 
" Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto 
the ends of the world." Rom. c. 10, v. 18. 

4. Whereas the Scripture says, (Isa. c. 61, v. 6, &c.,) " Ye 
shall be named the priests of the Lord, men shall call you the 
ministers of our God, ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, 
and in their glory shall you boast yourselves — everlasting joy 
shall be unto them — I will direct their work in truth, and I 
will make an everlasting covenant with them, and their seed 
shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among 
the people; all that see them shall acknowledge them, that 
they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed — for as the 
earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the 
things that are sown in it to spring forth, so the Lord God 
will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth, before all 
the nations." "No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, 
" the Lord did not cause such great joy and righteousness to 
shine in his church upon earth, neither was his covenant 
everlasting with her, and her sacrifice ought not to be always 
known among the people. For our Sebastianus Arancus 
affirms (in his Epist. de abrogandis in universum omnibus Sta- 
tutis Ecclesiasticis) that ' through the work of Antichrist, the 



188 

external church, together with the faith and sacraments, van- 
ished away presently after the apostles' departure.' " 

5. Whereas the Scripture says, (Isa. c. 62, v. 6, 12,) "I 
have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall 
never hold their peace, day nor night; and they shall call 
them the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord, a city sought 
for, and not forsaken." " No, no," say the Protestant and 
Presbyterian, " you did not give such watchmen unto the 
church at all ; neither ought she to be a city continually 
sought for, and not forsaken ; for our Mr. Napper says (on 
the Rev., p. 161) that 'from the year 316, God hath with- 
drawn his church from open assemblies, to the hearts of 
particular godly men, where it abode invisibly, for the space 
of one thousand two hundred and sixty years.' " I beseech 
you, brother, to request your ministers to show you, (if they 
can,) by some texts of clear Scripture, what became of those 
watchmen mentioned by the prophet all that time, wherein 
they allege the Church of Christ to have been invisible to the 
world. Did these watchmen all sleep for the space of twelve 
hundred and sixty years, who were never to hold their peace, 
either day or night 1 and could the Church of Christ be a city 
forsaken, and not sought for, all that time 1 Indeed, brother, 
this doctrine of your learned ministers not only appears to 
be contrary to the express word of God, but also contrary 
to the chief ends for which God established a church upon 
.earth ; for the first end was, that the people might be guided 
in the true way of salvation, and this always requires the 
visibility of pastors and the flock ; hence there must still be 
a visible flock, to whom these visible pastors ought to admin- 
ister the sacrament and preach the gospel. The second end 
for which the Church of Christ was ordained, was, that she 
might receive the Gentiles, and such persons as strayed from 
the faith of Christ ; but an invisible church, it is evident, 
could never compass this end ; because her gates would be 
shut, and the people could not know where to knock at. The 
third end is, that the Church might settle such controversies 
as might arise amongst Christians ; and hence Christ says, 



189 

" Tell the church, and if he neglect to hear the church, let 
him be unto thee as a heathen and publican." Matt. c. 18, 
v. 17. But if the Church had been invisible, she could 
neither have been told any thing, nor found out in any place. 
The fourth end was, that the Church might oppose all errors 
and heresies, according to that of Isaiah, saying, " Every 
tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment, thou shalt 
condemn." Isa. c. 54, v. 17. And it was for this end that 
God gave to his Church those true pastors and teachers, 
of whom St. Paul makes mention, (Ephes. c. 4, v. 11, &,c. :) 
but if the Church had been invisible, her pastors could not 
oppose any errors or heresies ; and so the world might be a 
sink of errors, and a mass of heresy and confusion. 

6. Whereas the Scripture says, (Jer. c. 33, v. 14, &,c.,) 
" Behold, the day shall come, saith our Lord, that I will per- 
form the good word that I have spoken to the house of Israel 
and to the house of Judah : in those days, and in that time, 
I will make the bud of justice to spring forth unto David, 
and he shall do judgment and justice on the earth, saith our 
Lord ; there shall not fail of David a man to sit upon the 
throne of the house of Israel, and of the priests and Levites, 
there shall not fail before my face a man to offer holo- 
causts If my covenant with the day can be made void 

also my covenant may be made void with David my ser- 
vant, that he should not have a son to reign in his throne, 
and Levites and priests my ministers ; even as the stars in 
heaven cannot be numbered, and the sand of the sea be 
measured, so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, 
and the Levites my ministers." " No, no," say the Protestant 
and Presbyterian, " God did not by any means promise to mul- 
tiply the number of priests, and his covenant with the visible 
church was not perpetual; for if it had been, our Mr. Fulke 
would not say (in his Answer to a Counterfeit Catholic, p. 79) 
that the whole visible church may become an adulteress, and 
may be divorced from Christ." Truly, brother, your doctrine 
is not that which the prophet foretold in this text ; but that 
of the house of David there should rise a man, that is, Christ, 



190 

whose kingdom would so visibly flourish, that successively, in 
all ages, his vicegerents would judge and do justice upon 
earth, and that the priests of this kingdom, by which the 
Church of Christ is understood, as I observed, sec. 25, No. 7, 
should be exceedingly numerous, and would never fail to 
offer sacrifice, expressed by the name of those sacrifices 
which were, in the time of Jeremiah, known to the world. 

7. Whereas the Scripture says, speaking of Christ's time, 
(Psalm 72, v. 7, &c.,) " In his days shall the righteous flourish, 
so long as the moon endureth, and he shall rule from sea to 
sea, and from the river even to the end of the round world ; 
yea, all the kings of the earth shall adore him, and all nations 
shall serve him." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyte- 
rian, " righteousness was not to flourish visibly so long as the 
moon endureth ; for our Mr. Fox says (Acts and Monu- 
ments, p. 391) that in time of horrible darkness, when there 
seemed in a manner to be no one little spark of pure doc- 
trine left or remaining, Wickliff, by God's providence, rose 
up, through whom the Lord would have first awakened and 
raised up again the world." 

8. Whereas the Scripture says (Psalm 22, v. 27) that 
" all the ends of the world shall remember and be converted to 
our Lord, all the kindred of the nations shall adore in his 
sight." " No, no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " the 
ends of the world have not been converted to our Lord, but 
rather preverted to the devil, by committing a worse kind of idol- 
atry than ever they did before they knew Christ ; and hence our 
Danceus says (in his book against Bellarmin, part 1, p. 781) 
that the Jesuits, who glory in having converted to the faith 
of Christ certain islands of the East and West Indies, under 
color of teaching them Christ, they brought them to worse 
idolatry than they were before involved in, and changed 
those miserable Indians, converted by them into sons of hell, 
and rendered them worse than they had been before." What, 
brother, is this the charity that your church hath for those 
Christians, because they believe now in Jesus Christ, " in 
whose name every knee of celestial, terrestrial, and infernal, 



191 

ought to bow " 1 Philip, c. 2, v. 10. Is it by being converted 
to the Lord, they became the sons of hell ? Is it by adoring 
the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the holy sacrament, 
they became worse idolaters then ever they were before they 
were Christians? See what I have said concerning idolatry, 
sec. 21, No. 10. 

9. Whereas the Scripture says, speaking of the law of 
grace, (Mai. c. 1, v. 11,) "From the rising of the sun even 
to the going down thereof, great is my name among the Gen- 
tiles, and in every place (note these words) there is sacrifice, 
and there is offered a clean oblation, because my name is 
great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " there neither was, 
nor ought there to be, any sacrifice or clean oblation offered 
in any place of the world, since Christ offered himself once 
upon the cross ; and it cannot be said in truth that the Lord's 
name was great among the Gentiles until now of late; for our 
Crispinus (in his book of the Estate of the Church, p. 333) 
says that ' John WicklifT began, as from a deep night, to draw 
the truth of the doctrine of the Son of God.' " I beseech 
you, brother, to request your ministers to show you where 
they read in Scripture that the Church of Christ could 
remain for a certain time in such darkness, and invisibly in a 
perishing condition ; and be sure not to take for an answer 
this tergiversation of theirs, that she might be reduced to 
such a low condition as the Jewish church had been in the 
time of Elias, who complained that " himself only remained a 
prophet of the Lord," (1 Kings, c. 19, v. 10, 14;) for even 
then, when Elias spoke these words, the Jewish church was 
visible and very numerous ; and at that very time Elias was 
told that " Abdias had hid a hundred prophets of the Lord 
by fifty and fifty in caves." 1 Kings, c. 18, v. 13. Hence it 
evidently follows that Elias was not the only prophet then 
left; wherefore these words, viz., " I only remain a prophet," 
are to be understood thus : " I only remain a prophet, stand- 
ing openly to oppose their fury, among the apostate tribes of 
Israel : " and that this was the meaning of Elias you may evi- 



192 

dently know from the next chapter, which, as you pretend, 
favors your doctrine ; for it is said there that the Lord told 
Elias that there " were left in Israel seven thousand men 
whose knees had not been bowed before Baal," (1 Kings, c. 19, 
v. 18 ;) and Elias knew also that only ten tribes of the children 
of Israel had then fallen from the worship of the true God ; 
for this is manifest by the 12th chapter, v. 21, of the same 
book, which says that the tribes of Juda and Benjamin offered 
" Rhehoboam a hundred and fourscore thousand chosen 
men," to fight with the other revolted tribes ; and this is 
again repeated in the Second Book of Chronicles, with a re- 
markable declaration how much a Jewish church even then 
flourished in Juda and Benjamin ; " for Rhehoboam himself 
built fifteen cities enclosed with walls, and the priests and 
Levites, that were in all Israel, resorted to him out of all their 
coasts, and after them out of all the tribes of Israel ; whoso- 
ever had given their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel 
came unto Jerusalem to sacrifice ; and they strengthened the 
kingdom of Juda." 2 Chron. c. 11, v. 13, &c. All this 
Elias knew full well when he spoke the former words, and he 
knew that " Abiah had four hundred thousand chosen men 
of war in battle against Jeroboam." 2 Chron. c. 13, v. 3. 
Elias knew also that Asa had an army of men that bare tar- 
gets and spears out of Juda, three hundred thousand ; and 
out of Benjamin that bare shields and drew bows, two hun- 
dred and fourscore thousand men. 2 Chron. c. 14, v. 8. 
And Josaphat (who also lived in the days of Elias) " was 
greater than Asa his father." 2 Chron. c. 17, v. 1, &,c. " And 
the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the land 
that were round about Juda, so that they made no war upon 
Josaphat." v. 10. And he built many strong cities, and stu- 
pendous was the number of the forces ; under him Abnah was 
a chief of three hundred thousand men. v. 14. Jehohanan 
a captain of two hundred and fourscore thousand, v. 15. 
Amasiah offered himself with two hundred thousand mighty 
men of valor, v. 16. Elida was a captain of two hundred 
thousand, v. 17. And Jehozabad was a captain of a hun- 



193 

dred and fourscore thousand men. v. 18. All which 
number of soldiers were at the hand of the king, besides 
others, whom he had put in the fenced cities of Juda. v. 19. 
By this enumeration you may see how numerous the Jew- 
ish church was even at her lowest ebb. 

10. Seeing, therefore, that the Church of Christ is the mis- 
tress, and consequently of superior dignity, she must in all 
ages, from her commencement at least, have as many visible 
professors of her doctrine, as the Jewish church had in her 
meanest condition ; for the prophet foretold " that the glory 
of the latter house should be greater than that of the former." 
Haggai, c. 2, v. 9. And St. Paul says that " Christ had ob- 
tained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the 
Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon 
better promises." Heb. c. 8, v. 6. But if we believe your 
Protestant and Presbyterian doctrine, Christ must be a Medi- 
ator of a far worse covenant, and his Church established 
upon worse promises, and consequently less glorious, than 
ever the Jewish synagogue hath been, even since the coming 
of Christ ; ever since he came, the Jews have professed 
openly their religion, and had still visible synagogues in di- 
vers famous nations and cities of the world ; and yet you 
allege that the true Church of Christ had not as much as one 
visible Church for the space of many hundred years, during 
which time you affirm that there could not be one found, in 
the whole face of the earth, who had the courage or devotion to 
acknowledge openly the true faith of Christ. Now, what can 
be more contrary to the honor of Christ than this wicked 
device 1 What can be more opprobrious to all the Christians 
of those times, than this cursed opinion of your ministers, 
which gives a great advantage to the Jews and infidels to 
exclaim against the Christian religion ; for they may hereby 
pretend to affirm that the Christian Church could not be the 
Church and kingdom of the true Messiah, which the prophets 
clearly foretold should be eternal, conspicuous, and glorious, 
through all ages, until the consummation of the world ; they 
may also pretend that Christ could not be the true Messiah, 
17 



194 

because, according to this opinion, he palpably failed in his 
promise to the Church ; nay, I see that it hath caused already 
some Protestants to stumble at Christian faith, and plunge 
them into atheism ; for example, David George, a Protestant 
of Holland, blasphemed against Christ, in his history printed 
at Antwerp, in the year 1568, saying, " If the doctrine of 
Christ had been true and perfect, the Church which they have 
planted had continued ; but now it is manifest that Antichrist 
hath subverted the doctrine of the apostles, and the Church 
by them begun, as it is manifest in the Papacy : therefore the 
doctrine of the apostles was false and imperfect." Hereupon 
he became an apostate from the Christian religion, who was 
before a great man in your church, as Osiander relates in his 
Epitome, cent. 16, par. 2, p. 647. By such another conceit, 
Barnardus Ocbin renounced the divinity of Christ, as your 
Beza writes, De Poligamid. p. 4. Adam Nauserus, a Calvinist, 
the chief pastor of Heidelberg, in the end turned a Turk, and 
was circumcised at Constantinople, as Osiander relates in his 
Epitom. con. 16, part 2, p. 118; and that learned Zuinglian 
Almannus held at last that the true Messiah was not yet 
come, because the prediction of the prophets concerning his 
kingdom were not yet fulfilled of the church of his religion ; 
and hence he renounced Christianity, and became a blasphe- 
mous Jew, as Beza relates, Epist. 64, p. 308. All this dere- 
liction of faith and morality was the result of the reforma- 
tion ; for Luther and Calvin had scarcely separated from the 
Church, when their disciples separated from them ; nor had 
the founders a better right to innovate than their followers, 
who formed new sects of their own, and propagated the most 
impious and profligate doctrine. Of this Luther himself bit- 
terly complains, (in Rcspon. ad Mul.) " I have experienced," 
says he, " no greater nor more capital enemies than those 
sweet brethren of ours, whom, as our children, we have nour- 
ished in our bosom, and now are become masters of new sects." 
But Luther was the prime cause of those divisions, and there- 
fore need only blame himself, not CE col amp ad i us, Carolstadi- 
us, and Zuinglius, to whom he alludes. What blessed effects 



195 

the new reformation produced on the minds of the people, 
even at the time of its greatest perfection, that is, 1537, we 
learn from Capito, a Protestant minister at Strasburgh, in a 
confidential letter to Farel. " God has discovered to us," says 
he, " the injury we have done to the Church by our precipitate 
decisions, and the inconsiderate vehemence which induced us 
to reject the pope ; for the people, accustomed to, and, as it 
were, bred up in licentiousness, have completely cast off the 
yoke ; as if, by destroying the pope's authority, we at the 
same time meant to destroy the efficacy of the Scripture, the 
sacrament, and the ministry. The people openly tell us, ' I 
know enough of the gospel ; I have no occasion for you ; go 
and preach to those that are disposed to hear you.' " These 
are not exaggerations ; they are what a new pastor communi- 
cates in confidence, and by them we see the sad effects of the 
reformation. You may see by these very examples how dan- 
gerous and pernicious it is to hold that the Church of Christ 
could be either fallible or invisible ; and hence St. Paul says, 
" If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." 2 Cor. 
c. 4, v. 3. 

11. Whereas the Scripture says, (speaking of the law of 
grace, Mich. c. 4, v. 1, &-c.,) " In the last days it shall come 
to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be 
established in the top of mountains, and high above all the 
hills, (what more visible ?) and people shall flow into it, and 
many nations shall hasten, and shall say, Come, let us go to 
the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of 
Jacob, and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in 
the name of the Lord our God, forever and ever." " No, 
no," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " the God of Jacob 
did not teach the people his ways, neither did they walk in 
his house visibly, any considerable time ; for our Mr. Parkins 
says (expounding the creed, p. 307) that, during the space 
of nine hundred years, the Popish heresy had spread itself 
over the whole world." Pray, brother, ask your ministers 
how that Popish heresy could reign so universally and so long, 
without being then condemned by the true Church, in some 



196 

corner or other of the whole world ; for the prophet says of 
the Church of Christ, " No weapon that is formed against 
thee shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against 
thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn." Isa. c. 54, v. 17. 
Since, then, it is the property of the Church of Christ to con- 
demn all such tongues as do rise against her in judgment, 
ask your ministers in what village or city, in what province 
or country, in what kingdom or nation, did the true Church 
then condemn that Popis'h heresy ; when she had separated 
from the whole body of the Church, as all heretics do, accord- 
ing to that of John, speaking of heretics : " They went out 
from us, but they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, 
they would, no doubt, have continued with us; but they went 
out, that they might be made manifest that they are not all 
of us." 1 John, c. 2, v. 19. If, then, all heresies go out of 
the Church, that they might be made manifest, and known to 
the people, how could it happen that then the true Church 
made no manifest declaration against that Popish heresy? 
How could the chief promoter of that heresy be able in the 
beginning to obtrude his strange and novel doctrine en the 
whole Christian world, from the rising to the setting of the 
sun? and this so silently that no mention should be made in 
any ancient history or chronology of the least impediment 
it met with, or of the least contradiction made any where on 
the whole face of the earth against it ? Is it possible that the 
four parts of the world, differing in customs, manners, lan- 
guages, interests, and opinions, and so distant from each 
other in places and affection, should be all found, at one 
time, to consent unanimously to that heresy ? Could so great 
a revolution as this be effected at the persuasion of any one 
pope? and done so silently, that no one single writer then 
living would record who that pope was, or by what means 
he, or the chief promoter of that heresy, could effect a change 
so incredible throughout the world, without finding any where, 
among good or bad, learned or unlearned, any manner of 
opposition? Can any man in his senses imagine that, in the 
beginning of such an alteration, there would be neither grace 



197 

nor judgment in all Christendom, to oppose such a new 
heresy, and say that it was quite contrary to what they were 
formerly taught by their predecessors? For at that time this 
very assertion would have prevented many thousands, in 
several nations, from embracing that paradox, and cause 
some of them to write then on that subject, that they might 
transmit the knowledge of it to posterity, as we see they have 
done with all other heresies, and with several other things of 
far less importance ; nay, we see that they did not hesitate to 
set down the very ceremonies which were successively added 
to the mass ; neither did they forbear to relate the personal 
and private vices even of the popes themselves ; and yet we 
cannot discover by the writings of any ancient authors that 
ever the Roman Church separated from any known society of 
Christians then in existence, and more ancient than itself; 
but to the contrary we see that these authors declare, unani- 
mously, that all heretics had departed from her, as you may 
see hereafter, sec. 29, No. 3. 

12. You have now seen, both in this and in the last sec- 
tion, that the Church of Christ must always have visible 
pastors, and that these pastors must be lawfully called to that 
charge; for those who enter in by usurpation, without being 
sent by lawful commission, are not true pastors, but thieves 
and robbers; for " he that entereth not by the door into the 
sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a 
thief and a robber." John, c. 10, v. 1. Uzziah was struck 
with the leprosy for presuming to usurp the office of a priest, 
(2 Chron. c. 26, v. 19 ;) and another example of the same 
kind may be seen in the first of Chronicles, (c. 13, v. 9, &c. ;) 
and hence people are forbidden in the New Testament to 
assume this office unless they be called. " No man," saith 
Paul, " taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of 
God, as Aaron was." Heb. c. 5, v. 4. See sec. 18. The way 
the Jewish church had to distinguish the lawful pastors from 
usurpers, was this — that none among them were promoted to 
the priesthood but those who were descended from Levi by 
Aaron. The law of grace, of which the former was a type, 
17* 



198 

has the same way of distinguishing the true and lawful 
pastors from usurpers and unlawful ones; for none are con- 
sidered to be lawful and true pastors in the Church of Christ 
but those only who are lawfully descended from the holy 
apostles, by visible ordination and personal succession ; and 
this was what caused the holy fathers to prove the truth of 
the Church by the lawful succession and vocation of the 
pastors, up to the very apostles; for they knew that our 
Savior himself had called twelve apostles, and sent them 
with commission to preach the gospel and govern the Church. 
Matt. c. 28, v. 20. They knew also that the same apostles 
called and ordained other pastors, as is evident in the election 
of Matthias, (Acts, c. 1, v. 26;) and likewise other chief 
pastors, viz., bishops, received power from the apostles to 
choose and ordain others, as is manifest by St. Paul's words 
to Titus, c. 1, v. 5. So that whosoever now desires to know 
where the true Church of Christ is to be found, or those 
pastors of which St. Paul makes mention in his epistle to 
the Ephesians, (c. 4, v. 11, &c.,) he ought to find out who 
those pastors are that have succeeded, one after another, by 
lawful ordination, until the very apostles; and with them only 
he will be sure to find the Church of Christ. For these are 
the only pastors whom St. Paul commands us to obey, in 
these words: " Obey your prelates, and be subject to them, 
for they watch as being to render an account for your souls." 
Heb. c. 13, v. 17. And Christ himself said thus of them: 
" He who hears you hears me, and he who contemns you 
contemns me." Luke, c. 10, v. 16. " Whosoever shall not 
receive you, nor hear your words, verily I say unto you, it 
shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, 
in the day of judgment, than for that city." Matt. c. 10, 
v. 14, &c. You see, therefore, by clear Scripture, that we are 
obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to hear and obey 
those pastors who are lawfully sent, and employed to watch 
over our souls ; and we are under no less obligation to 
beware of false teachers, for Christ speaks thus of them : 
" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's 



199 

clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves ; ye shall 
know them by their fruits." Matt. c. 7, v. 15. "Take heed 
that no man deceive you, for many shall come in my name, 
and deceive many." Matt. c. 24, v. 4, 5. Seeing, then, you 
know evidently, by all the texts of Scripture produced in this 
and the foregoing section, (see sec. 18,) that there must be 
always lawful and visible pastors in the Church of Christ, 
and that false teachers were also to appear, teaching perverse 
doctrine, you ought to choose the secure way of salvation, by 
adhering to those true and lawful pastors who give evident 
proofs of their lawful mission and lineal succession in every 
age to the time of the apostles. 



SECTION XXVII. 

Of the Invisibility of the Protestant and Presbyterian 
Churches, before Luther and Calvin's Time. 

1. There is a custom common to both foxes and heretics, 
as St. Augustin observes, commenting on the 80th Psalm ; 
for as foxes have two entrances to their den, to the end that 
they may save themselves by the one, when pursued by the 
other, so heretics have also cunningly contrived two ways of 
answering, that they may escape by the one, when they find 
themselves entrapped by the other. This custom is in great 
request both with Protestants and Presbyterians ; for when 
they are pressed to show the visibility of their churches 
before Luther and Calvin, they say that they were invisible, 
and therefore could be neither known nor shown ; but when 
it is proved by Scripture that the true Church must be always 
visible, then they make many shifts to show that they were 
visible ; and when the contrary is proved against them, then 
they run back again to the den of invisibility, and so think 
to escape by this means ; but this den of invisibility is suffi- 
ciently stopped by what I have produced in the last section ; 



200 

and I shall now hunt after them in all directions, until I stop 
up their den of visibility. Some of them would fain prove 
their church to have been visible in the Waldenses and Albi- 
genses; others would have it to have been visible in the 
Wickliffites : some say that it was visible in the Hussites ; 
others would have it to have been in Greece : and some of 
them say that it was visible in Ethiopia and Armenia, pre- 
tending that these nations were Protestants before Luther and 
Calvin's time ; and the rest leap to the purer times, before 
the pontificate of St. Gregory, and allege that the primitive 
church and the holy fathers were of their own religion ; but 
after making this monstrous leap of nine hundred or a thou- 
sand years, and there finding both pastors and flock at the 
sacrifice of the mass, (which they abhor as idolatry,) they 
run back to the den of invisibility, alleging it to be un- 
necessary for the Church of Christ to be still visible. These 
different answers clearly evince that they have no great cer- 
tainty of their pedigree ; and I will now show you the insuffi- 
ciency, by which you will plainly perceive how the Protestant 
and Presbyterian religion was unknown to the whole world 
before Luther and Calvin's apostasy from the Roman Church, 
at the beginning of the sixteenth century. 

2. Mr. Jewel, and Mr. Jennings, and many other Protes- 
tants, appeal to the fathers of the first five ages; but this pre- 
tence is both idle and false ; first, it is idle, because, were it 
true that the fathers of the primitive church were Protes- 
tants, yet that wouid not suffice to prove now a continual suc- 
cession of pastors, in every age of the eighteen hundred 
years now elapsed ; for I ask, what became of the Protestant 
church during the thousand years that intervened between the 
fathers and Luther 1 Did it perish, or not 7 If it perished, 
then it cannot be the true Church, which ought to be perpet- 
ual and visible, as you have seen, sec. 25. If the Protes- 
tant church did not perish, but remained visible for the thou- 
sand years between the fathers and Luther, then the question 
remains unanswered, viz., where was it, then, when Luther 
was a Roman Catholic ? In what kingdom, province, or city, 



201 

did she then preach the gospel as she does at present ? Thid 
you were never able to prove ; whence it follows that granting 
the fathers to have been Protestants, yet your Protestant 
church could not claim the title of being still visible, since 
the time of Christ. Secondly, this pretence is false, viz., 
that the fathers were Protestants ; for the Christians of the sixth 
age knew better what was the religion of the fathers, and of 
those of the fifth age, by whom they were instructed, and with 
whom they conversed, than Protestants, who first appeared a 
thousand years after them ; but these Christians of the sixth 
age have protested before God, and took it upon their con- 
science, that they taught and practised the same religion 
which they had received from their immediate predecessors, 
both in writing and by word of mouth. Therefore, if the 
Christians of the sixth age were not Protestants, neither were 
the fathers nor the Christians of the fifth age Protestants; and 
you may likewise conclude with the Christians of every age, 
even until the apostles' time. That the fathers were not 
Protestants is evident to any one that reads their writings ; 
for they acknowledged the pope's supremacy, the real pres- 
ence, transubstantiation, purgatory, invocation of saints, the 
lawfulness of images, and offered the sacrifice of the mass, 
as you may see in the answer to Mr. Jenning's challenge. 
Therefore the fathers were not Protestants ; and if they had 
been, surely your own chief reformers would not rail so much 
at them as they do ; for Luther says thus of them : " In the 
writings of Jerom there is not a word of true faith or sound 
religion ; of Chrysostom I make no account ; Basil is of no 
worth ; he is quite a monk ; I weigh him not a hair ; Cyprian 
is a weak divine." Coloq. de Patribus. And he further 
says that " the authority of the fathers is not to be re- 
garded." Tom. 2, Wittemb. p. 434. As for Calvin, he ingen- 
uously confesses that the fathers were against him in many 
points. " It was a custom," saith he, " about one thousand 
three hundred years ago, to pray for the dead ; but all of that 
time, I confess, were carried away into error." Lib. 3, 
Inst. c. 5, sect. 10. He confesses, also, that the fathers 



202 

taught satisfaction, free-will, merit, fasting in Lent, &>c. &c. 
And hence Mr. Whitaker says, " It is true what Calvin and 
the Centuriators, [or Magdeburgians,] have written, that the 
ancient church hath erred in many things, as touching limbo, 
free-will, merit of works, &/C." Cont. Bellar. controv. 2, 
q. 5, p. 299. And he further says that " the Popish reli- 
gion is a patched coverlet of the fathers' errors." Cont. 
Durum, lib. 6, p. 423. Mr. Cartwright speaks thus of St. 
Augustin, (according to Mr. Whitgift, in his Defence, p. 103 :) 
" I appeal to the judgment of all men, if this be not to bring 
in Popery again, to allow of St. Augustin's saying." You 
may judge, by these acknowledgments of your own authors, 
that the holy fathers were neither Protestants nor Presbyte- 
rians. Now let us see your other pretences. 

3. That the Protestant church may be contained in the 
Waldenses, Albigenses, &c, two things are to be proved by 
Protestants. The first is, that these people have ever continued 
since the apostles' time, for the Church of Christ's perpetuity 
requires this. The second is, that the Waldenses, Albigenses, 
&c, were entirely of that faith which Protestants now profess 
in their confession of faith ; for without this these people 
could not be Protestants ; but neither of these two things can 
be proved by Protestants, or by any man living. The first is 
sufficiently disproved, because the Waldenses first appeared 
about the latter end of the twelfth century, and their only 
ringleader was one Waldo, a rich merchant of Lyons, in 
France, as your own Mr. Fox testifieth. Acts and Mon. p. 
628. How can it then be proved that the Waldenses had 
continued since the apostles' time, seeing their first author 
was in the beginning a Roman Catholic, and lived in the 
twelfth century. Supposing, then, that Waldo became a 
Protestant, which is false, the question still remains unan- 
swered, viz., Where was the Protestant church before Waldo? 
And as the Waldenses did not continue since the apostles' 
time, so they did not agree entirely either with Protestants or 
Presbyterians in the principal articles of their religion ; " for 
they did not believe justification by faith," as Luther himself 



203 

affirms, Colloq. de Stor. And Calvin says (Epist. 224) that 
they believed the real presence in the Popish sense of tran- 
substantiation ; they agreed with Catholics in several other 
points, viz., in the number and nature of the sacraments, the 
vow of chastity, the necessity of baptism, &-c. But they 
maintained with these things divers gross errors, which are 
condemned both by Catholics and Protestants ; for they held 
that churchmen, by mortal sin, lost all their spiritual au- 
thority ; that the civil magistrates, by mortal sin, fell from 
their dignity ; and that churchmen should possess no personal 
property ; for which opinions they called themselves the poor 
men of Lyons, and sought the confirmation of this title from 
Pope Innocent the Third ; but this request they could not ob- 
tain. As these different opinions show that the Waldenses 
were not true Protestants, so the following points which they 
held will show that they were not Presbyterians ; for they 
admitted no form of prayer except the Lord's prayer ; but the 
Presbyterians admit many other forms of prayers of their 
own making, and have entirely rejected the Lord's prayer, as 
you have seen, sec. 23, No. 1. The Waldenses held that 
there were three kinds of orders in the church, viz., deacons, 
priests, and bishops; but the Presbyterians have abjured 
episcopacy, and the whole hierarchy of the church : the 
Waldenses held that all oaths were unlawful ; but the 
Presbyterians have displaced (since King James was ban- 
ished) all the episcopal ministers in the kingdom of Scot- 
land for not taking unlawful oaths. Truly I find nothing 
wherein the Waldenses agreed more with Presbyterians than 
with other Protestants, except in this alone, that they con- 
temned the Apostles' Creed, like the Presbyterians. 

4. That the Albigenses were neither Protestants nor Pres- 
byterians is also evident ; for they began in the same age 
with the Waldenses, and derived their name from Alby, a 
town of Languedoc, in France, where the greatest part of 
them remained ; and they were a branch of the Waldenses, as 
your own Osiander (Cent. 13, lib. 1, c. 4) and Mr. Fulke 
(de Success. Eccles. p. 332) do confess ; so that their late 



204 

rising proves that they had not continued since the apostles' 
time, and consequently that the Protestant or Presby- 
terian church cannot be shown to have continued in 
them; and their pretence herein is also deficient, because 
these sectaries did not believe the Protestant or Presby- 
terian's confession of faith ; for they held the same doctrine 
with the Waldenses, except some few things that they added 
of their own ; for they maintained, with the Manicheans, that 
there were two principles, viz., God and the devil ; they de- 
nied, with the Sadducees, the resurrection of the body ; they 
rejected baptism with the Manicheans, Selucians, and other 
ancient heretics ; and hence some Protestant writers declare 
that they were not of themselves ; for Mr. Jewel, speaking of 
them, says, (in his Defence of the Apolog. p. 48,) " They were 
not of us." And Osiander rejects them more clearly in the 
following words : " Their doctrine was absurd, impious, 
heretical ; they remained obstinately in their errors and im- 
piety, and men think that they have been possessed with 
Anabaptistical fury." Seeing, therefore, that neither your 
Protestant nor Presbyterian church can be found visible 
among the Waldenses, nor in the Albigenses, let us examine 
if they were visible among the Wickliffites. 

5. John Wickliff, from whom the Wickliffites are named, 
was a priest and rector of Lutterworth, Lincolnshire, but was 
deprived of his benefice by the archbishop of Canterbury, as 
your own Mr. Stow relates, (in his Annals, p. 425;) and he 
lived in the year 1371, as Mr. Fox testifieth, Acts and Mon. 
p. 85. Therefore the church of the Wickliffites, which be- 
gan so long after the apostles' time, cannot be the perpetual 
church we are seeking for ; and that these sectaries were 
neither Protestants nor Presbyterians is evident ; for they did 
not believe the Protestant confession of faith ; hence Melanc- 
thon says of Wickliff, (ad Miconium,) "Truly he neither 
understood nor held the justice of faith." Nay, after his 
apostasy, he held several points of the Catholic doctrine, viz., 
the lawfulness of holy water, the honoring of relics and im- 
ages, the intercession of our blessed Lady, the apparel and 



205 

tonsure of priests, the ceremonies of the mass, and all the 
seven sacraments, as you may see in his own works, which 
were written after his apostasy ; he also maintained several 
gross errors condemned both by Catholics and Protestants ; 
for he held that all things fell out by an absolute and fatal 
necessity, and that God ought to obey the devil, that baptism 
administered by churchmen in the state of mortal sin was 
invalid; nor could they confer holy orders; and that ecclesi- 
astics ought to have no temporal possessions or property in 
any thing, but ought to beg; that princes and magistrates fell 
from their dignity and power by committing a mortal sin ; 
that their subjects might punish them as they pleased ; there- 
fore one of his disciples, Sir John Oldcastle, rose up in re- 
bellion against the king, at St. Giles's field ; but, fourscore of 
his associates being taken, thirty-seven of them were con- 
demned and executed in the same field, as Mr. Stow relates. 
p. 551. You may now perceive, brother, that the Wick- 
liffite principles were contrary to your Protestant and Pres- 
byterian doctrine and practice, this last point only excepted, 
wherein you do not differ much from them ; for the Wick- 
liffites taught that subjects ought to punish their sovereigns 
when they misbehaved ; but your Protestants and Presbyte- 
rians have only beheaded and banished their lawful princes, 
for not misbehaving themselves before God and man ; as ap- 
pears in the case of King Charles the First, and in that of his 
son, King James the Second. Let us compare the meekness 
of Jesus with the violence of the Wickliffites. " Whosoever 
shall not hear you," says Jesus, " shake off the dust from your 
feet, for a testimony to them." " Whosoever shall not hear 
you," say the Wickliffites, " draw out your sword and strike 
him." Protestants claim them as their ancestors in the faith ; 
but in our opinion, they ought to reject them ; for neither 
doctrine nor practice of ancestors can shed any lustre on 
their posterity. 

6. Having confuted the Protestant and Presbyterian pre- 
tences to visibility in France and England, before Luther 
and Calvin's time, let us now travel to Bohemia, and see 
18 



206 

whether we can find them to have been visible in the Huss- 
ites, who took their name from one John Huss, that lived 
about the year 1405. He was first a Roman Catholic, and a 
priest, according to your own Mr. Fox, who speaks thus of 
him, (in Apocolip. c. 11, p. 290:) "What did the Popish 
faith define of transubstantiation which he did not confirm? 
who said mass more religiously then he? who kept more 
chastely the vows of priestly single life? " Yea, he afrirmeth 
also that Huss maintained free-will, justification by works, 
the veneration of images, and several other points of the 
Roman Catholic religion. But along with these he obsti- 
nately held the aforesaid doctrine of the Wicklimtes, concern- 
ing churchmen and princes ; and moreover urged the com- 
munion to be given under both kinds to the laity ; yet this is 
no proof that either the Protestant or the Presbyterian church 
have been visible in the Hussites ; because these heretics did 
not believe in your Protestant or Presbyterian confession 
of faith ; and in case they had believed that, as they cer- 
tainly did not, yet it would not suffice ; because the ques- 
tion would still remain unanswered, viz., where was the Prot- 
estant and Presbyterian religion visible before the Hussites, 
who began so late ? 

7. Now, brother, seeing we cannot find the visibility of 
your Protestant or Presbyterian church among any sect that 
professed publicly the worship of God in Europe before the 
year 1517, at which time Luther first began to revolt against 
the Roman Church, let us see what pretence you can have 
of showing your visibility among the Greeks, who were at 
least seven or eight hundred years in communion with the 
see of Rome, as the first eight general councils do testify, 
which were all held in Greece, and have been approved by 
the popes of Rome ; and the principal reason that caused the 
Roman Church to reject the Greek communion was, because 
they denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, 
about the year 764. They have often retracted this same 
error, and were therefore reunited to the Roman Church, as 
appears by their last submission in the general council held 



2or 

at Florence in the year 1438. And hence it is evideut 
that your pretence of being visible among the Greeks is friv- 
olous ; and it is far from probable that we can manifestly 
show the contrary by the decrees of that council which the 
Greeks held at Constantinople in the year 1642, in order to 
reject and condemn your Protestant and Presbyterian prin- 
ciples. 

8. Your pretence of being visible among the Armenians 
is also frivolous, for they were in communion with the see 
of Rome until about the year 685, as Baronius informs us 
in his Annals. And after they had revolted from her, they 
never believed the doctrine of your confession of faith ; for 
they still believe the real presence, they say mass, they pray 
for the dead, they invoke the saints, and maintain several 
other articles of the Catholic faith ; they were reunited to the 
Church of Rome along with the Greeks in the afore-men- 
tioned council of Florence ; but they fell again, since that 
period, from her communion, and maintain now some errors 
which are condemned both by Catholics and Protestants ; for 
they deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, 
with the Greeks ; confound the two natures in Christ, with 
the Eutychians, and reiterate baptism ; all which do evidently 
show that the Armenians neither were nor are Protestants or 
Presbyterians. 

9. Your pretence to visibility in Ethiopia is mere stuff, 
without any ground or probability ; for the Ethiopians were 
Roman Catholics almost for the space of five hundred years 
after Christ ; and since their schism they never believed the 
doctrine of your confession of faith ; for they still agree with 
the Roman Catholics concerning the number and virtue of 
the seven sacraments ; they invoke the saints ; they pray for 
the dead, and say mass ; they believe transubstantiation, as 
Dr. Stratfort showeth from their own authors ; and they call 
the pope of Rome the head of all bishops, as is evident by 
their emperor's letter to Pope Clement the Seventh, whereof 
part is recited in the supplement to Spondanos ; they main- 
tain divers errors which neither Catholics nor Protestants 



208 

hold ; for they deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from 
the Son, with the Greeks ; affirm (with the Monothelites) that 
there is bat one will in Christ; they say (with the Eutochi- 
ans) that he has bat one nature; they abstain from certain 
meats, like the Jews, and observe, with thsm, the precept 
of circumcision ; all of which evidently show, that the Ethi- 
opians neither were nor are Protestants or Presbyterians. 

10. Having sufficiently proved to you, brother, the falsity 
of all your pretences concerning the visibility of your church 
before Luther's time, hence I advise you to urge your 
ministers to show you, authentically, that kingdom or nation, 
that city or parish, that society or community of Christians, 
which, before Luther, either believed or taught your princi- 
ples, as they are now contained in your confession of faith ; 
and though I know this to be as impossible for them to show 
you, as it is for you to drink the whole sea in one draught, 
yet I am sure they will strive to come off by telling you some 
silly fables, which they have invented ; but acquiesce not to 
such groundless stories, but rather oblige them to gratify your 
request with written authorities, and that authentically de- 
duced from those authors who are known to the world before 
Luther and Calvin's days ; and if you stick close to them by 
demanding this proof, then you shall see how miserably they 
will strive to shift you off, by introducing some impertinent 
and silly story of their own invention, reflecting on the pope 
or on Roman Catholics ; and if you show that you are not 
versed in the Greek or Hebrew languages, then they will be 
sure to come off by persuading you to wonderful things con- 
tained in those languages of which they find you were igno- 
rant ; if they find that you have not studied philosophy, then 
they will strive to shift you off by inferring some illegal con- 
sequences, which are seemingly deduced from certain premi- 
ses. (See sec. 24, No. 1.) And if they pretend to come off 
by the den of invisibility, then tell them that it is contrary 
to the express word of God, that the true Church of Christ 
could be at any time invisible to the whole world, (as you 
have seen, sec. 26;) that it is also against their own prin- 



209 

ciples that this Church could be invisible ; for Protestants 
commonly assign two necessary marks of the true church, to 
wit, the right preaching of the word, and the administration 
of the sacraments ; and the Presbyterians add to these two 
marks, their discjples, as a third mark, and, in proof hereof, 
produce the authority of their own authors ; for Mr. Whita- 
ker says, (lib. 3, cont. Duraeum, p. 249,) " The administra- 
tion of the word, and sacraments being present, do constitute 
a church, and being absent, do subvert it." Mr. Willet says 
(in his Synopsis, p. 69, 71) that " these marks cannot be 
absent from the church, and that it is no longer a church 
that hath not these marks." And hence you may inquire 
from your ministers, whether their church, (which some of 
your authors teach,) to have been visible for the space of nine 
hundred, some for a thousand, and others for twelve hundred 
and sixty years, (see sec. 26, No. 1, 5,) always had, since the 
apostles' time, the preaching of the word, and the adminstra- 
ticn of the sacraments, or not. If it had always these 
marks, it could not be at any time invisible to the whole 
world. And if it was visible, let them show you in what king- 
dom, nation, or city, they have always, since the apostles' 
time, preached the word of God, and administered the sacra- 
ments after the same manner that their confession of faith 
prescribes to them now to perform them. And if they will 
not show you this authentically, — which I defy them to do, 
— you may then rightly conclude against them, that, according 
to their own principles, they had no church at all in any part 
of the whole world, until Luther and Calvin's time ; for until 
then they wanted these two or three marks, which they re- 
quire as absolutely necessary to constitute a true church : as 
for an invisible church, it may be well termed the kingdom 
of Satan, for no church, though ever so invisible, can be 
imagined without eternal faith; at least St. Paul affirms 
that " faith comes by hearing, and that hearing cometh by 
preaching the word of God." Rom. c. 10, v. 14, 17. But in 
an invisible church, there could be no preaching nor hearing 
of the word of God, and consequently that invisible church 
18* 



210 

could have no faith, if you believe St. Paul ; so that your 
ministers' invisible church, which before Luther and Calvin's 
time wanted faith, preaching, and the administration of the sac- 
raments, cannot be the true church of Christ, but rather a 
chimerical church, purposely invented by Satan and his dis- 
ciples, in order to deceive poor ignorant souls. 

11. Now, brother, since we cannot discover that your 
church was visible or invisible before Luther and Calvin's 
days, I request of you to let me know by whom were these 
men taught, or who sent them to teach these new notions of 
theirs, which were unknown to the world before their coming ; 
for, as I have hinted above, St. Paul says that " faith comes 
by hearing ; " and he asks, " How can one preach except he be 
sent? " Rom. c. 10, v. 15, 17. Therefore I have great reason 
to inquire, From whom did Luther and Calvin hear these new 
doctrines which they taught ? or who sent them to teach that 
doctrine? for I suspect that they are some of those false 
teachers, which the Scripture writers foretold should come to 
deceive the people, by teaching them false and erroneous doc- 
trine; for God speaks thus of those who preach without a 
lawful commission : " I have not sent these prophets, yet they 
ran ; I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied ; I have 
heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name ; 
they are prophets of the deceit of their own hearts, which 
think to cause my people to forget my name ; behold, I am 
against them that cause my people to err by their lies and by 
their lightness, yet I sent them not, nor commanded them; 
therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the 
Lord." Jer. c. 23, v. 21, 25, 26, 27, 32. And St. Paul says 
also, (speaking to the pastors of the church,) " I have not 
shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God; take 
heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the 
church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood ; 
for I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves 
enter in among you, not sparing the flock ; also of your own 
selves (Luther and Calvin were first Roman Catholics) shall 



2JJ 

men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples 
after them ; therefore watch." Acts, c. 20, v. 27, &c. " And 
though an angel from heaven preach another gospel unto you 
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be 
accursed : as I said before, I say now again, if any man preach 
another gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him 
be accursed." Gal. c. 1, v. 8, &,c. Since, therefore, I find 
that the doctrine taught by Luther and Calvin is contrary to 
the word of God, (as you have clearly seen in what I have 
examined hitherto,) and that they have not received it from 
their predecessors, or from any society of Christians, who 
continually taught it in all ages, from the apostles' time, and 
that they were not lawfully sent to preach it, (see sec. 26, 
No. 12,) I think I have great reason to believe that they were 
some of those false prophets mentioned in Scripture ; and 
consequently that the churches which they have established 
are not the true church of Jesus Christ. 



SECTION XXVIII. 

Which shows that the Prophecies of the Old Law, 
concerning the true Church of Christ, are only veri- 
fied of the Roman Church. 

1. You have seen by the texts of Scripture produced, 
(sec. 25 and sec. 26,) that it was foretold of the Church of 
Christ, that she would convert the Gentiles to the Christian 
religion ; and the apostles could not wholly fulfil these predic- 
tions, by reason of the distances of several kingdoms, to 
which they could not reach, and the cruel tyranny where- 
with both they and the Christians of those times were perse- 
cuted, as Christ himself had foretold. Luke, c. 21, v. 12, &/C. 
So that the full performance of the predictions, and the 
charge which Christ gave his apostles, by commanding them 
to go and teach all nations, (Matt, c, 28, v. 19,) were to be 
fulfilled by the successors of the apostles ; and those of the 



212 

Roman Church alone have performed all that ever was per- 
formed of it ; for it was this Church alone that converted to 
Christianity all the nations that ever since the time of the 
apostles acknowledged the name of Christ, as all ancient and 
modern authors unanimously testify ; and as it would be 
tedious to produce their testimony, I shall therefore only pro- 
duce your own Protestant authors, who are forced to ac- 
knowledge the same, to wit, Mr. Fulke, (in his Answer to a 
Counterfeit Catholic, p. 35,) Sebastianus Francus, (Epist. 
de abrogandis in universum omnibus Statutis Ecclesiasticis,) 
Mr. Napper, (upon the Revel, p. 43, 68,) Mr. Brocard, (upon 
the Rev. p. 110, 123,) Martin Bucer, (lib. 1, de Scripta 
Anglicana de Regno Christi, p. 12, 18, &c.,) and Philippus 
Niolai, who wrote two entire books upon this subject. Both 
the former and following Protestant authors declare that the 
conversion of several nations to Christianity was altogether 
accomplished by the Roman Church at that period, during 
which those of your religion confess commonly that she was 
a true Church, to wit, in the first three hundred years before 
the conversion of Constantine the Great, the first Christian 
emperor; hence Mr. BarlovV, bishop of Rochester, says (in 
his Defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion, p. 34) 
that " in the primitive nonage of the church, the promises 
of sovereign allegiance thereunto were not fully accomplished, 
because in these days the prophecy of our Savior was rather 
verified — You shall be brought before kings for my name's 
sake, and by them be persecuted," &,c. Mr. Whitaker, advert- 
ing to the examples of many countries converted to Christian- 
ity by the Roman Church, since the time of St. Gregory, says 
that " these countries and many nations, after the time of 
Gregory, mentioned by Bellarmin, were not pure, but cor- 
rupt." Lib. cont. Bellar. p. 336. And Symon Lythus makes 
use of the following words : " The Jesuits, within the com- 
pass of a few years, not satisfied with the confines of Europe, 
have filled Asia, Africa, and America, with their idols." 
Respon. altera ad alteram Gretseri Apologiam, p. 331. 
Thouo-h these authors endeavor to render the Roman Church 
odious to the ignorant, by falsely accusing her of idolatry, 



(as you have seen, sec. 21,) yet, on the other hand, you see 
they acknowledge that it was she only that converted to 
Christianity all those nations which were ever converted 
since the time of the apostles ; so it appears most clearly 
that she only hath herein accomplished that which was fore- 
told of the Church of Christ. 

2. You have seen (sec. 26) that the Church of Christ 
must be universal both for time and place; that is, she must 
continue from the time of Christ until the end of the world. 
" For of Christ's kingdom there shall be no end." Luke, c. 
1, v. 32, &c. She must also be diffused over all nations, 
(Isa. c. 2, v. 2,) still teaching the same doctrine. (See sec. 
25.) But these two properties are only verified of that soci- 
ety of Christians which are in communion with the see of 
Rome, as is evident. If we speak of the time before Luther 
and Calvin's apostasy, there were no Protestants or Presby- 
terians at all that could then contest with her, as you have 
seen, (sec. 27;) neither was there in those times any other 
society of Christians that assumed the name of Catholic or 
Universal Church, if we except the sects and heretics that went 
out from her, which, being condemned by this Church, re- 
mained as unprofitable boughs cut off from the vine ; " she 
only remaining the holy Church, the only Church, the true 
Church, and the Catholic Church," as St. Augustin affirms, 
lib. 1, Symbol, c. 6. Your own Mr. Fulke says (in his 
Confutation of Purgatory, p. 334) that " she retained by 
succession the faith which she first received from the apostles, 
until Tertullian's days," that is, until about the year 230. 
Mr. Whitaker (de Ecclesia, p. 278) affirms the same ; and he 
further says, (lib. de Antichristo, p. 85,) " I do acknowl- 
edge that the Roman Church was pure and flourishing, and 
inviolably taught and defended the faith delivered unto her 
by the apostles, for the first six hundred years after Christ." 
Mr. Napper says (upon the Revel., p. 68) that " the anti- 
christian and Papistical government hath begun to reign 
universally, and without debatable contradiction, twelve hun- 
dred and sixty years before Luther." You may now most 



214 

clearly see that your own Protestant authors acknowledge 
that the Roman Church was the only universal church before 
Luther's time ; and if we make now a comparison between 
her and the Protestant churches since Luther arose, we shall 
find they come very short of her in universality ; which to 
show, I will make use of St. Augustin's argument proving the 
universality of the Roman Church, against the Donatists, lib. 
de Unitate Eccles. c. 3. " These sects," saith he, " are not 
found in many nations where this Church is; and this, which 
is every where, is found also even where these sects are." I 
may now as lawfully say the same to Protestants and Presby- 
terians ; for they are not to be found in many nations, where 
the Roman Catholic religion is publicly professed, but Ro- 
man Catholics may be found where the Protestant is the es- 
tablished religion ; nay, there are many large kingdoms and 
provinces, in Europe itself, in which neither Protestants nor 
Presbyterians are to be seen or found, as in Spain, in Portu- 
gal, Sicily, Naples, Bohemia, and Italy ; in France, Germany, 
Poland, and Hungary, they are not rt handful in comparison 
to the Roman Catholics; and in those northern countries, out 
of which they have banished by force the public exercise of 
the Catholic religion, there are still some Roman Catholics, 
who always profess their faith, notwithstanding what hard- 
ships, disabilities, and persecutions they suffer for professing 
it. As to other parts of the world in which the Roman 
Catholic religion doth wonderfully flourish, the name of 
Protestant or Presbyterian is not as much as known to them ; 
for the Catholic religion is not only professed in the most 
famous kingdoms and provinces of Europe, but is also to be 
found in Africa, Asia, and America, according to your own 
Simon Lythus, quoted in this section, No. 1 ; and though in 
different countries the public profession is heretical, Mahom- 
etan or pagan, yet even there the Roman Catholic faith is 
professed among them ; and what the Catholic Church hath 
lost in Europe by Luther and Calvin's apostasy she hath 
gained, with much increase, by the propagation of the Cath- 
olic faith in the East and West Indies, and at present in the 



215 

great kingdom of China, where many hundreds of thousands 
have embraced the Roman Catholic faith ; and in proof hereof 
I need no other testimonies than the acknowledgment of 
your own authors, produced in the first paragraph of this sec- 
tion ; and see also sec. 26. So that you may plainly perceive 
that it is only the Roman Church — by which we understand, 
not the diocese of Rome in itself, but all those in communion 
with that see — which can be taken for the Catholic or univer- 
sal Church, and consequently for the true Church of Christ, 
which both your creed and your Bible declare to be universal, 
and command you to hear and obey. Matt. c. 18, v. 17. 
Rom. c. 13, v. 7, &,c. 

3. It was foretold of the Church of Christ, that she should 
condemn all heretics, according to the following text : " No 
weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every 
tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt con- 
demn." Isa. c. 54, v. 17. This commission of condemning 
heretics, given to the Church of Christ, is also declared by 
St. Paul to Titus : " A man that is a heretic, after the first 
and second admonition reject ; knowing that he that is such 
is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself." 
Tit. c. 3, v. 10, &,c. Hence St. Peter knew it to be his duty 
to reprehend and condemn the heresy of Simon Magus, who 
was the first heretic that appeared in the church ; for he 
thought to purchase for money the power of giving the Holy 
Ghost. Acts, c. 8, v. 20, &,c. And there is no society of 
Christians in the world that hath continually, since the 
apostles, performed this duty, but those in communion with 
the see of Rome, as is evident by all histories, and the de- 
crees of ancient and modern councils held by this Church, in 
order to condemn the false and erroneous principles of all 
those heretics that opposed the true doctrine of Christ ; she 
therefore first held a council at Rome, convened by Pope 
Anicetus, about the year of Christ 165, and condemned the 
opinions of certain heretics, who taught that Christians ought 
to imitate the Jews concerning the time of celebrating the 
feast of Easter. Pope Victor also held a council at Rome, in 



216 

197, against the former heretics, and he caused another coun- 
cil that year to be assembled in Africa for the same purpose. 
The Marcionite heresy was condemned in France, by a coun- 
cil held at Lyons the same year ; the Montanist heresy was 
condemned by a council held at Jerusalem, in 244. And 
other heretics were condemned that year by a council held in 
Arabia. The Novatian heresy was condemned by a council 
held at Rome, in 254. There was a council held in Alexan- 
dria, which condemned the heresy of Sabellius, in 263. The 
heresy of Paul Samosatenus was condemned by the council 
of Antioch, in 272. The Donatist heresy was condemned by 
a council held at Rome, in the time of Pope Melchiades, 
about the year 313. The Arian heresy was condemned by a 
council held at Alexandria, in 315. This heresy was also 
condemned by the first general council of Nice, (wherein 318 
fathers were assembled,) in 325. The heresy of one Phc- 
tinus was condemned by a council held at Sirmium, in 349. 
The council held in Rome condemned the heresy of Valens 
and Ursacius in 368. The Apollinarists, and several other 
heretical principles, were condemned by another council held 
at Rome, in 373, and also by the first general council of 
Constantinople, (in which 159 fathers were assembled,) in 
381. The Priscillianist heresy was condemned by the coun- 
cil of Saragossa, in 385. The heresy of Jovinian was con- 
demned by the council of Milan, in Italy, in 390. The Pela- 
gian heresy was condemned by the council of Carthage, in 
416, and by another held in France, in 429. The Nestorian 
heresy was condemned by the general council of Ephesus, (in 
which 200 bishops were assembled,) in 431. The Eutychian 
heresy was condemned by the council of Chalcedon, (in 
which 630 fathers were assembled,) in 451. The heresy of 
one Anthymius was condemned by the council of Constanti- 
nople, in 536. There were other heretics condemned that 
year by the council held at Jerusalem. Dydimus, Evagrius, 
and other heretics, were condemned by the second general 
council of Constantinople, (wherein 165 fathers were col- 
lected,) in 553. The council of Braga, in Portugal, con- 



217 

demned the Priscillianist heresy, which appeared in that 
kingdom in 563. The council of Seville condemned other 
heretics in 619. The council of Milan condemned the 
Monothelite heresy in 679. This heresy was also condemned 
by a council held in France the same year. The third gen- 
eral council of Constantinople (in which 170 fathers were 
assembled) condemned likewise the same heresy, together 
with several others, in 681. The Iconoclast heresy was con : 
demned by the council of Rome, in 726. This heresy was 
also condemned by the second general council of Nice, (at 
which 350 bishops assisted,) in 787. The fourth general 
council of Constantinople (at which 383 bishops assisted) 
condemned the heresy of Photius, in 869. The heresy of 
Berengarius was condemned by the council of Paris, in 1050. 
The heresy of Peter Abelard was condemned by the council 
of Soissons, in 1120. The second general council of Late- 
ran (in which 1000 prelates assembled) condemned the heresy 
of one Peter de Bruis, in 1139. The heresy of Gilbert Po- 
retanus was condemned by the council of Paris, in 1147. 
There was another council held at Paris in 1170, which con- 
demned the heresy of Peter Lombard. And another council, 
which was held in France, condemned the Albigensian heresy, 
in 1176. And both they and other heretics were condemned 
by the third general council of Lateran, in 1179. The heresy 
of one Amauri was condemned by a council held at Paris, in 
1200. The doctrine of one Joachim and several other here- 
tics was condemned by the fourth general council of Lat- 
eran, (in which above 412 prelates were assembled,) in 
1215. The general council of Vienna (in which 400 fathers 
were assembled) condemned the heresy of the Beguards 
and Beguines, in 1311. John Wickliff's heresy was con- 
demned by a council held in England, in 1382. This 
heresy, together with that of John Huss, and Jerom of 
Prague, was also condemned by the council of Constance, (in 
which above a thousand fathers were assembled,) in 1414. The 
general council of Trent (in which six cardinals, four legates, 
three patriarchs, two hundred and sixty bishops, and several 
19 



218 

other prelates of inferior dignities, were assembled) condemned 
the heresy of Martin Luther and John Calvin, about the year 
1545. 

It would be too tedious for me to particularize here all the 
errors of the aforesaid condemned heretics. I therefore refer 
the curious reader to them in the proceedings and decrees 
of the afore-mentioned councils. Hence you may evidently 
perceive that it was the Roman Church alone that hath ex- 
ercised, in all the preceding ages, the charge of condemning 
heretics. This was foretold of the Church, and granted to 
her in the law of grace. You may also perceive, by the as- 
sembling of those councils in all ages, that the Roman 
Church was both universal and visible to the whole world 
ever since the apostles' time, which properties were clearly 
foretold of the Church of Christ, as may be seen, sec. 26. 
And hence, brother, you may justly conclude that the Roman 
Church is the only true Church of Jesus Christ, because all 
the prophecies that relate to the Church of Christ are only 
verified in her ; because her doctrine is exactly conformable 
to the express word of God, as is evident by what I have 
proved to you in this treatise, which I shall now conclude 
with the following section. 



SECTION XXIX. 

Of the Opinions of the Fathers concerning the Roman 
Catholic Church. 

1. I remember, brother, you told me, at our last confer- 
ence, that you would believe the holy fathers' authorities con- 
cerning the true Church ; and hence I thought it fit to let 
you know their opinion of the Roman Catholic Church. 
St. Irenaeus, who lived in the year 180, says thus : " The 
founders of the Church delivered the episcopacy and govern- 



219 

ment of the Church to Linus ; who was succeeded by Anacle- 
tus, Clement, Evaristus ; " and so he enumerates all the rest 
of the bishops of Rome, in constant succession, down to the 
bishop who then ruled the Church ; and after numbering them 
so, he then concludes with the following words : " This is a 
most full demonstration that the same lively faith, taught 
by the apostles, is still, even unto this day , preserved in the 
Churchy and truly delivered." Lib. 3, c. 3. Tertullian, who 
lived in 220, speaks thus of the Roman Catholic Church : 
" What I believe, I received it from the present Church, and the 
present from the primitive, the primitive from the apostles, 
the apostles from Christ." De Pres. c. 21. And he further 
says, " That is true which was first, that is first ivhich was 
from the beginning ; that was from the beginning which was 
from the apostles." Lib. 4, cont. Mar. c. 5. St. Cyprian, 
who lived in 250, says thus : " We know Cornelius, the 
bishop of Rome, to have been elected by Almighty God, 
and Christ our Lord, the Bishop of the most holy Catholic 
Church ; neither are we ignorant that there ouglvt to be one 
God, one Christ our Lord, one Holy Ghost, and one bishop 

in the Catholic Church." Epist. And he further says, 

" They are so bold as to carry letters from profane schismatics 
to the chair of Peter, to the principal Church, from which the 
unity of the priesthood originates, not considering the Romans 
to be those whose faith was praised by St. Paul." Rom. c. 1, 
v. 7, c. 16, v. 19, &/C. " To whom misbelievers cannot have 
access, (Epist. 55,) for the Church never parts from that 
which she has once known ; the Church is the spouse of Christ, 
which cannot play the adulteress." Lib. de Unitate Eccles. 
Lactantius, who lived in 320, says thus, speaking of the 
Roman Catholic Church : " It is she alone which, as the ancient 
fathers write, retains the true worship: she is the fountain 
of truth, and the temple of God — into which whosoever shall 
not enter, or out of which whosoever shall depart, can 
have no hope of everlasting life and salvation." Lib. 4, de 
Divin. Inst. c. ult. St. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, who 
lived in 400, applies that of the Canticles, c. 6, v. 9, to the 



220 

Roman Catholic Church, saying, " My dove, my undefiled, 
is but one ; one is this virgin, this chaste one, this spouse, the 
holy city of God, the faith, the foundation of truth, the firm 
rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail." And, 
giving an abridgment of her faith, he congratulates himself 
in the beginning, because he had nothing to do with filthy 
heresies, but had made his approach to the calm coasts of 
truth. " For now," saith he, " being free from all fear, trou- 
ble, and tediousness, and being in an excellent posture, by 
reason of the firm tranquillity and security here breathing, 
how did we rejoice in spirit, being received into a serene 
haven ! We have passed many evils in our navigation through 
the aforesaid seas of heresy ; but now, having in sight the city, 
(viz. the Church,) let us make haste to this holy Jerusalem, and 
virgin of Christ, and spouse, and secure foundation and rock, 
our reverend mother, most seasonably saying, Let us ascend to 
the mountain of the Lord, and into the house of the God of 
Jacob, and she will teach us our ways ; let us address to her 
these words of her spouse — Come, my spouse from Libanus, 
because thou art all fair, and there is no spot in thee." And 
that he means the visible Church on earth, is evident by these 
words, in which he flies to the Church, saying, " To the end 
that, being placed in thee, we may rest from the troubles 
of the foregoing heresies, in thee, our holy mother the Church, 
and in thy holy doctrine, that we may be refreshed in thy 
truth, with the holy and only faith of God." Optatus, 
who lived in the 4th century, excludes the Donatists from the 
number of Catholics, because they did not communicate 
with the see of Rome, (lib. 2, cont. Perm.:) and St. Atha- 
nasius confounds the Arians, when he says, " Behold, we 
have proved the succession of our doctrine, delivered from 
hand to hand, from father , to son ; but as for you, O you 
new Jews and sons of Caiphas, what progenitors can you 
name for yourselves?" Lib. 1, de Decret. Niceni Concilii. 
St. Chrysostom, a father of the 4th century, writing on these 
words, " The queen stood at the right hand," (Psalm 45, 
v. 9,) says, " The Church is opposed, and overcomes ; being pur- 



221 

sued by snares, she gets the advantage ; provoked with wrongs 
and reproaches, she becomes more illustrious ; she is hurt, but 
yields not to the print of the wounds ; however she may be 
tossed, she is not overwhelmed ; she endures great tempests, 
and yet, notwithstanding, suffers not shipwreck ; she wrestles, 
but she is not thrown down." " / will adduce a short 
and clear declaration of my mind," says St. Jerom, " that 
we ought to remain in that Church, which, being founded by 
the apostles, endures even unto this day." Dial. cont. Lu- 
cifer. And he also makes use of the following words in his 
epistle to Pope Damascus : " / speak to the successor of the 
fisherman, {meaning St. Peter,) and to the disciple of the 
cross, following none but Christ: I am joined in communion 
with your holiness, that is to say, with the chair of Peter ; 
for upon that rock I know the Church is built ; whoever eats 
the lamb out of this house is profane ; if any one be not in 
the ark, he will perish in the deluge." And in his commen- 
tary on that of St. Paul, 1 Tim. c. 3, v. 15, he also says, 
that " Pope Damascus was ruler of the house of God, which 
St. Paul called the pillar and ground of truth." St. Augus- 
tin, bishop of Hippo, who was converted to the Christian faith 
in 387, says, that " the succession of bishops from the seat of 
Peter, to whom our Lord, after his resurrection, commanded 
his sheep to be fed, to Anastasius, the present bishop [of 
Rome, then living) held himself within the lap of the Church." 
Cont. Epist. Fundam. c. 4. And he also says, " If thou 
seem to thyself to have been already sufficiently tossed, and 
would put an end to those labors and pains , follow the way of 
the Catholic discipline, which hath proceeded from Christ by 
his apostles, even unto us, and from hence (mark these words) 
shall descend, and be conveyed to posterity." Lib. de Utili- 
tate credendi, c. 8. And speaking of the great authority of the 
true Church, he subjoins these remarkable words to his friend 
Honoratus, c. 17 : " Since, therefore, we see such great help 
and assistance from God, shall we make any doubt or question 
at all of retreating to the bosom of that Church, which to the 
confession of mankind, from the see apostolic, by the succes- 
19* 



222 

sion of bishops, hath obtained the sovereignty and principal 
authority ? while heretics in vain baric around it, being partly 
condemned by the gravity of councils, partly also by the 
majesty and splendor of miracles, unto which not to grant the 
chief place, is either indeed extreme impiety, or the effect of a 
very rash and dangerous arrogance." And he further says 
(Epist. 50) that " the Catholic Church alone is the body of 
Christ, and that out of this body the Holy Ghost quickens no 
man" And a little before these last words, he says, " For 
as a member, if it be cut off from the body of a living man, 
cannot retain the spirit of life, so a man who is cut off from 
the body of Christ, cannot retain the spirit of justice." And 
speaking of the Donatists, who held that the Church had per- 
ished in all places, but remained with themselves in Africa, 
" This they allege," saith he, in Psalm 101. " This opinion is 
so damnable, so detestable, so full of presumption and false- 
hood, an opinion maintained with no truth, enlightened with 
no wisdom, seasoned with no salt, vain, rash, heady , pernicious ; 
the Holy Ghost foresaw that the Church is not hidden, because 
it is not placed under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that 
it may shine to all who are in the house ; a city seated on a 
hill cannot be hid — but it is, as it were, hid to the Donatists, 
because they hear its clear testimonies, which prove that she is 
diffused all over the whole world, (note these words,) and they 
choose rather with shut eyes to dash against that mountain, 
than to go up to it." Lib. de Unitate Eccles. c. 14. Writing 
against a Manichean book entitled Fundamenti Epistolam, 
he speaks thus : " Nut to speak, then, of that wisdom which you 
do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many 
things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent 
of people and nations keeps me in it. The authority begun 
by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, and con- 
firmed by antiquity, keeps me in it. The succession of prelates, 
from the seat of St. Peter, the apostle, to whom Christ com- 
mitted his flock after his resurrection, to him who at present 
sits in his chair, keeps me in it. In fine, the very name of 
Catholic, which, not without reason, amidst so many heresies , 



223 

this Church alone has so attained, that, whereas all heretics 
would be called Catholic, yet if any stranger should ask 
where the Catholics assemble, no heretic dare show his own 
church or house." St. Austin, lib. uno, contra Epist. Fund, 
cap. 4. 

I might produce several other authorities to this purpose, 
not only from the aforesaid holy fathers, but also from several 
other ancient doctors and writers, who lived in the first five 
hundred years after Christ ; but I thought that it would be too 
tedious and unnecessary ; because the truth of this matter is 
sufficiently proved, by what I have already adduced from the 
word of God and the aforesaid fathers ; I will therefore con- 
clude with that of St. Ambrose, who was also a father of the 
4th century, who speaks thus of the Roman Catholic Church : 
" She cannot suffer shipwreck, because Christ is exalted on 
the mast, that is, on the cross ; the Father stands pilot at the 
stern; and the Holy Ghost preserves the forecastle." Lib. de 
Salom. c. 5. Therefore the Roman Church is the true and 
infallible Church of Jesus Christ, which exists in all ages from 
Christ's time, and will be so to the consummation of the 
world, protected by the Father, assisted by the Son, and gov- 
erned by the Holy Ghost ; as you have seen by clear Scrip- 
ture, sec. 25, No. 12. 

You have now seen, brother, by this treatise, that your pre- 
tended reformation is but a thick Egyptian darkness, which 
obscures the true doctrine of Jesus Christ; and your minis- 
ters have nothing but mere promises of truth, grounded upon 
their own foolish fancies, passing from one falsehood to an- 
other. If, therefore, you are disposed to believe the express 
word of God, or to live and die in that faith without which 
St. Paul affirms it to be impossible to please God, (Heb. c. 11, 
v. 6,) you ought to enter without delay into the Roman Cath- 
olic Church ; for you have now seen that she is the true 
Church, which alone has endured without spot or wrinkle 
since the time of the apostles : she is the Church that hath 
enlightened the whole world with the Christian faith ; she is 
the only Church that has been always admirable for her unity, 



224 

and eminent for her sanctity, that replenished the heavens: 
with innumerable glorious saints, who have all lived and died 
in that communion ; she is the only Church that is universal^ 
both for time and place; she is the Church that hath her 
gates continually open both day and night, to receive the 
strength of the Gentiles ; she is the Church which alone hath 
a continued succession of visible pastors, lawfully descending,, 
without interruption, from the time of the apostles; she is the 
Church that still adheres so closely to the faith she once re- 
ceived, (Rom. c. 1, v. 7, c. 16, v. 19, foe.,) that she never 
departed from it, notwithstanding all that pagan cruelty or 
heretical impiety hath ever opposed to her doctrine ; so that 
she was justly called the pillar and ground of truth, a firm 
rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail; this 
Church is the chaste virgin and true spouse of Jesus Christ, 
which has been falsely accused by various heretics; " yet she 
still remains in her root, in her vine, and in her charity." 
St. Augustin, lib. 1, Symbol, c. 6. Her Heavenly Spouse 
has manifested her innocence, and brought in due time con- 
fusion on her enemies. What can you do more fitly, than to 
embrace the doctrine of this infallible Church, that, after 
so many dangerous errors and wanderings, you may return to 
your father's house, with the prodigal child? (Luke, c. 15, v. 
18 ;) and in so doing, you will be sure to walk in the way of 
salvation ; which the Lord God, of his infinite mercy, grant 
unto you, and to all other poor souls which have strayed from 
the true faith of Jesus Christ. Amen. 



APPENDIX. 



THE 



Si 



REFORMED" CHURCHES 



DESTITUTE OF A LAWFUL MINISTRY. 



How shall they preach, except they be sent?" — Rota. x. 15. 



THE INTRODUCTION; 



CONTAINING SOME DIRECTIONS FOR PERSONS WHO EITHER 
HAVE THEIR RELIGION YET TO CHOOSE, OR ARE 
ALREADY ENGAGED IN A WRONG CHOICE. 

Every man, come to the perfect use of reason, is bound 
to be of some religion to serve God in, according to the con- 
dition or station allotted to him by the divine Providence ; 
and it is a concern of the highest importance not to be mis- 
taken in the choice of it ; for nothing less than a man's 
eternal welfare depends upon it, and all is lost if he makes a 
false step in it. Indifference must therefore be laid aside ; 
for he who is indifferent whether he saves his soul or not, 
will most certainly perish. Neither must he consult interest, 
ease, or education ; for if he does, he will be in the utmost 
danger of making a wrong choice. Interest and ease will 
press hard upon him to embrace that religion which favors 
them most, whether it be the true one or not ; and education, 
if it be allowed to determine a man in the choice of his 
religion, will fix him as immovably in Judaism, Mahometan- 
ism, Socinianism, or Quakerism, as in the true Church of 
Christ. No man, therefore, ought to consider whether the 
church, whereof he is a member, be the church of the 
country where he is born; whether it be most favorable to his 
interest, liberty, and ease; or, finally, whether it be the 
church in which he is most like to make his fortune; but 
his whole examination ought to be of this one single point, 
viz., whether it be the true Church of Christ, in which alone 
salvation can be attained. 

But how is it possible for the greatest part of mankind, 



228 

such as soldiers, tradesmen, servants, or day-laborers, who 
are usually of limited capacities in relation to things out of 
their proper sphere, destitute of learning, and embarked in 
the cares and solicitudes of this life, — how is it possible, I 
say, for these to be duly qualified for this important choice 1 
The reason of the difficulty is plain, because there is but one 
faith, according to St. Paul, and but one holy, Catholic, and 
apostolic Church, according to the Nicene creed; whereas 
there are innumerable other churches, which all pretend to 
be the true church of Christ. Lutherans say they are this 
church ; Calvinists say the same ; Independents, Anabaptists, 
Quakers, and many more, put likewise in their claim ; and 
the Church of Rome condemns all these, and says she is the 
only true Church upon earth. And is it, then, possible for 
ignorant laics, amidst the daily hurry of business and throng 
of temporal concerns, to have either leisure or capacity to 
inform themselves exactly of all the disagreeing systems of 
so many churches at variance with one another, to examine 
to the bottom the grounds of their several pretensions, the 
truth or falsehood of their particular doctrine wherein they 
are divided, and all the reasons and scriptural texts that 
appear to be for or against them 1 Nothing can be plainer 
than that this is morally impossible. And so we must con- 
clude the greatest part of mankind is in no condition to find 
the true Church, or determine themselves in the choice of 
their religion by this sort of examination, which entirely sur- 
passes their capacity. 

It is, however, certain that, since Christ has established 
upon earth a Church for the salvation of men of all states and 
conditions, whether poor or rich, servants or masters, learned 
or unlearned, it must be possible for men of all states to dis- 
tinguish the true Church of Christ from such other churches 
as are no part of it ; for otherwise they would not have it in 
their power either to mend their choice, if they have already 
made a bad one ; or to make a right choice, if, by the mis- 
fortunes of their education, they should be engaged in a wrong 
way ; or even to know that they are in the true Church, when 



229 

the divine Providence has effectually bestowed that blessing 
on them. 

Hence it follows that there must be some other way besides 
the examination of particular points of doctrine for ignorant 
people either to make a rational choice of their religion, or 
to fix them with an entire security in the religion they have 
received by education, in case it be their happiness to have 
been brought up in the true one. 

But what way is there proportioned to their capacities to 
discern the only true Church from so many others, which all 
pretend to be this one true church? I answer, there are a 
great number of general arguments, plain and easy to be 
understood, which mark out the true Church as clearly as a 
pillar set up at the meeting of several roads directs travellers to 
the way they are to take ; and there are likewise some general 
principles by which a false church may be known as clearly 
as rocks and shelves under water are known by the marks set 
up to warn seamen against them. 

Let us, then, suppose a person is deliberating whether he 
shall embrace the Roman Catholic faith, or continue a mem- 
ber of the church wherein he has been educated. I assure 
him he will stand in no need of learning to make a right 
choice, but only of some natural good sense, and a hearty 
resolution to save his soul, if he will but weigh with attention, 
and without prejudice, the following general considerations I 
shall lay before him. 

1st. There are in the Gospels the fullest and plainest 
promises of a perpetual infallibility made by Christ to his 
Church, as will appear from the following texts : " Upon this 
rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it." Matt. c. 16, v. 18. " I will ask my 
Father, and he will send you another Comforter, to abide with 
you forever. 5 ' John, c. 14, v. 16. " The Comforter, which is 
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he 
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remem- 
brance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John, c. 14, v. 26. 
" I have yet many things to say unto you ; but you cannot bear 
20 



230 

them now. However, when the Spirit of truth is come, he will 
lead you into all truth." John, c. 16, v. 13. " Lo, I am with 
you always, even unto the end of the world." Matt. c. 28, 
v. 20. All which is confirmed by St. Paul calling the Church 
of Christ " the pillar and ground of truth." 1 Tim. c. 3, 
v. 15. 

Nothing, surely, can be stronger for the proof of an infalli- 
ble church than these texts. There must, therefore, be such 
a church upon earth, if Christ has been true to his word. 
Now, all the self-styled reformed churches in the world unani- 
mously own themselves to be fallible. It follows, therefore, 
that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the infallible church 
of Christ, as she has always maintained her claim to that 
title. And surely a Christian who seriously resolves to save 
his soul will choose an infallible church for his guide, rather 
than a fallible one. 

2dly. Protestants generally accuse us of a want of charity 
in denying the possibility of salvation to any but those of 
our own communion. I presume, then, their charity is more 
extensive than ours ; for otherwise it would be ridiculous to 
declaim against us for the want of it ; and so they can do no 
less than to allow the possibility of salvation to Roman Cath- 
olics ; that is to say, they are convinced in their hearts that 
Roman Catholics may be saved in their religion ; because 
otherwise it would be no charity to tell them so, any more 
than it would be a charity to tell a man that he can be saved 
in a damnable state. 

Now, in a dispute about the truth of revealed mysteries, 
which are above bur understanding, and which, by conse- 
quence, cannot be decided by the force of human reason, it 
cannot be doubted but the safest and wisest course we can 
take to secure the salvation of our souls, is to depend upon 
the greatest authority upon earth. And, therefore, since the 
authority of both Catholics and Protestants, joined together, 
is greater than that of Protestants alone, it follows plainly 
that it is safer for any man to choose the Roman Catholic 
Church preferably to any of the reformed churches, which 



231 

alone allow salvation to be attainable in their own commu- 
nion ; whereas the declared enemies of the Roman Catholic 
Church allow it to be attainable in the communion of that 
Church. Catholics, therefore, cannot be suspected of partiality 
in their own cause relating to this point, because they have 
their very enemies on their side ; but Protestants may be sus- 
pected of partiality, because they are the sole judges in their 
own cause, and have not only the whole body of Roman 
Catholics now extant in the world, but the authority of all the 
councils, bishops, and pastors, of the Catholic Church, for 
fifteen ages before the reformation, against them. Mr. Lesly, 
in his Case Stated, is pleased to call this a childish argu- 
ment ; but I have not yet seen a solid answer to it. 

3dly. There are numberless examples of persons brought 
up Protestants from their infancy, who in their last sickness 
have embraced the Catholic faith. A no less man than King 
Charles the Second was one of those. But I dare boldly 
challenge Protestants to produce one single example of a per- 
son brought up from his infancy in the Roman Catholic faith, 
who ever changed his religion upon his death-bed. Whence 
I conclude that even in the judgment of many persons 
brought up with a prejudice to us, it is safer dying a Catholic 
than a Protestant. And then I am sure it is likewise safer to 
live in the Catholic Church : because many, who have laid a 
design of dying Catholics, have been justly disappointed, 
either by a sudden death, or the want of opportunity to be 
reconciled in their last sickness. 

4thly. Whereas great numbers of Protestants, by becoming 
Catholics, have not only changed their religion, but manners, 
and, from libertines they were before, have become sober and 
regular Christians, nay, even embraced the austerities of a 
religious state, — I never heard of any Catholic, who, upon his 
turning Protestant, ever became either more sober, more 
chaste, more just, more charitable, or pious, than he was 
before. On the contrary, the lives of those who fall from the 
Catholic religion are generally so disedifying, and even pub- 
licly scandalous, that they are a dishonor, rather than a credit, 



232 

to the church they come over to. Nay, in the very beginning 
of the reformation, it was notoriously remarkable that liber- 
tinism and impiety increased proportionably as Luther and 
Calvin's new gospel made its progress ; which the reader will 
find proved with the utmost evidence from Protestant testi- 
monies in the following Tract, Art. 3. 

But is it any wonder that persons broke loose from the 
whole restraint of confessing and punishing their sins should 
be more easily carried away by all the inclinations of corrupt 
nature, than they who believe themselves bound in conscience 
to confess their most secret sins, to perform the penance im- 
posed upon them, to restore whatever they possess unjustly, to 
make reparation of honor if they have wronged their neigh- 
bor in his fame, and to avoid all the immediate occasions of 
relapses 1 It is morally impossible it should be otherwise ; 
and it follows from it that Roman Catholics, who are under 
all these and many more restraints, must needs be in a safer 
way to heaven than they who have none of these restraints 
laid upon them. 

I hope, however, no one will suspect I pretend to accuse 
modern Protestants of directly encouraging libertinism or vice- 
by any positive principle of their religion. For I should 
wrong them if I did. But what I say is, that they have de- 
prived themselves of the most powerful remedy against vice 
by reforming away the sacrament of penance, which we may 
properly call the strongest fence about the law ; and this 
being pulled down by the reformation, there is no need of 
encouraging the people to break in upon God's command- 
ments. It suffices that the restraints of shame and fear, the 
one of confessing, the other of punishing, their sins, are re- 
moved from their hands ; because corrupt nature, thus set at 
liberty, will after that act its own part, and be too hard for the 
commandments left thus unguarded. 

5thly. A motive which sufficed to fix so great and learned 
a man as St. Austin in the religion he had chosen is surely 
no weak one, and may suffice to direct any man, whether 
learned or unlearned, in the choice he has to make. Let us, 



233 

then, hear his own words. " Lastly, (says he,) the very name 
of Catholic holds me ; of which this Church alone has not 
without reason so kept the possession, that though all heretics 
desire to be called Catholics, yet, if a stranger asks them where 
Catholics meet, no heretic dare to point out his own house or 
church." But what church is it in which St. Austin was 
held steadfast by the very name of Catholics? His words 
immediately preceding are a full answer to this question. 
" Thirdly, (says he,) a succession of bishops descending 
from the see of St. Peter, to whom Christ, after his resur- 
rection, committed his flock, holds me in the Church." Contra 
Epist. Fund. c. 4. It is plain, then, it was the Church in 
communion with the see of Rome St. Austin had chosen for 
his guide. It was in this Church he was held by the very 
name of Catholic ; because she had always had, and has had 
ever since, so full and undisputed a possession of this honor- 
able title, that no communion separated from her was ever 
able either to gain it to itself, or dispossess her of it. 

But what means the word Catholic? It is a Greek word, 
and signifies the same as universal. And this is so essential 
a condition of the true Church, that no society upon earth 
can pretend to be a part of it unless it be to the communion 
of that Church which has universality both of time and 
place — of time, by being the standing Church of all ages 
since the time of the apostles; and of place, by having on its 
side the agreement of people and nations, according to St. 
Austin's expression ; both which parts of the Church's uni- 
versality are clearly marked out in the word of God. 

Her universality of time is marked out by Christ promising 
his apostles that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 
Matt. c. 16, v. 18. " And that he will be with them always, 
even unto the end of the world." Matt. c. 28, v. 20. And by 
Isaiah in these prophetic words : " This is my covenant with 
them, saith the Lord. My spirit that is upon thee, and my 
words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out 
of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of 
20* 



234 

the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth 
and forever." Isa. c. 59, v. 21. 

Her universality of place is marked out, 1st, by God's prom- 
ise to Abraham, that all nations of the earth should be blessed 
in his seed. Gen. c. 22, v. 18. 2dly, by the Psalmist: 
" Ask of me, and I shall give thee the Gentiles for thy in- 
heritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy posses- 
sion." Psalm 2, v. 8. And again : " Praise the Lord, all ye 
nations; praise the Lord, all ye people." Psalm 116, v. 1. 
3dly, by Isaiah describing the future glory of the Church of 
Christ in the multitude of people and nations flocking to her. 
Isa. 60. And lastly, by Christ himself giving a commission 
to the apostles and their successors " to go and teach all na- 
tions." Matt. c. 28, v. 19. 

Here, then, it behoves the reader to examine impartially 
whether these two parts of universality are to be found in the 
Church of Rome, or in any of the reformed churches ; be- 
cause in whatever church they are found, it cannot be 
doubted this is the true church of Christ. 

As to the Church of Rome, — that is to say, the church in 
communion with the see of Rome, — she has not only had an 
uninterrupted visible being from the time of the apostles to 
this day, but has always been the most illustrious society of 
Christians upon earth. She has, therefore, the universality of 
time promised by Christ, and foretold by Isaiah. She has 
likewise preached the gospel in the most remote and bar- 
barous nations in the world, who have all received the faith 
of Christ from her bishops and pastors ; and not only they, 
but likewise those very nations of Europe, in which the 
reformed churches are now established — as England, Scot- 
land, Ireland, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, and the Protes- 
tant parts of Germany and Switzerland ; for all these were 
converted from heathenism to Christianity by missionaries 
sent by the Church of Rome, as is manifest from their 
unanimous profession of the religion called Popery, for sev- 
eral aprs after their conversion, till the pretended refonna- 



235 

tion. Nay, she has, at this very time, bishops and pastors 
propagating the gospel among the infidels both of the East 
and West Indies. Therefore universality of place, or, as St. 
Austin calls it, the agreement of people and nations, can- 
not possibly be denied her. 

But can any of the " reformed " churches lay claim to this 
universality either of time or place ? Alas ! it is but two 
hundred and five years ago since the very first of them began 
to creep out of the shell, and it was some years after before 
the rest came into the world. It is plain, then, that the very 
eldest of them wants near fifteen hundred years of universal- 
ity of time ; and as to universality of place, I should be 
glad to know what barbarous or heathen nation has ever 
been converted by missionaries of any of the "reformed" 
churches, though they have all the opportunity imaginable 
to do it, by reason of the great trade several of them have 
both in the East and West Indies. Nay, is there any one of 
those churches that ever extended itself beyond what we 
may properly call a corner of the earth, comparatively to the 
large extent, both in and out of Europe, of the Roman Catho- 
lic Church? This, therefore, makes it likewise plain that they 
have no universality of place ; and being all separated from 
the communion of the Church of Rome, which has univer- 
sality both of time and place, they can be no part of the 
Catholic Church, nor have any claim to that honorable title ; 
the consequence whereof is, that they are no part of the true 
Church, in which alone salvation can be obtained, according 
to this saying of Christ, " If he will not hear the church, let 
him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican." Matt. c. 18, 
v. 17. That is, let him be regarded as a reprobate, or one in 
a damnable state. 

6thly. The "reformed" Churches, not one excepted, are 
either guilty of schism, or no church in the world was ever 
guilty of it. Nay, we may confidently say they have the 
plainest marks of schismatical churches it is possible for a 
church to have. For what is schism but an obstinate and 
wilful separation from the communion of the true Church of 



236 

God? Now, the first reformers boasted openly that they had 
separated themselves from the whole world ; and it is plain 
fact they did so. If, therefore, God has always had a true 
Church upon earth, as I take it to be an undeniable truth he 
has, the consequence is, that they had separated themselves 
from the true Church, as well as from other churches, which 
surely suffices to convince any man that his soul cannot be 
safe in any of the " reformed " churches. 

7thly. There can be no true Church, but what has its 
origin from Christ and his apostles; and this is likewise a 
truth which cannot be contested. Now, it is a plain, histori- 
cal fact, that the " reformation " began near upon fifteen hun- 
dred years after the ascension of Christ, that is, anno 1517 ; 
and by consequence, that there were none of the present " re- 
formed churches in the world before that time, because there 
could be no " reformed " churches before the reformation 
which gave them their birth. And how, then, can any of these 
churches pretend to be a part of the true one — that is, of the 
Church established by Christ and his apostles 1 Did they incor- 
porate themselves with any preexistent church that was a part 
of the true one ? No: they separated themselves from the whole 
world : they therefore began upon a new establishment, and 
are no more a part of any Christian church that was before 
them, than they are a part of the Jewish synagogue ; and so 
they can be no part of the Church founded by the apostles, 
which was surely before them. 

If any one pretends that the " reformed " church, whereof 
he is a member, has always had a being, though it has not al- 
ways been visible to men, I really pity his case, and advise him, 
as a friend, to give up the cause, honestly and fairly, rather than 
have recourse to such a wretched shift for its defence, which, 
in reality, is a cover for the most ridiculous sect upon earth. 
For who will pretend to defeat an invisible host? And so a 
Muggletonian or Quaker will be as safe behind his intrench- 
ment of an invisible church, and, with the help of this in- 
genious invention, trace the origin of his church to Christ and 
his apostles as easily as any " reformed " church in Europe. 



237 

8thly. There can be no security of salvation in a church 
whose very rule of faith is an inexhaustible source of divis- 
ions, errors, and contradictions. Now, whereas the Catholic 
rule of faith is the word of God, as interpreted to us by the 
Church of Christ, that of the reformed churches is Scripture 
interpreted by private judgment. So that the guide of Cath- 
olics is the greatest authority upon earth ; and the guide of 
Protestants is every man's private judgment ; because who- 
ever appeals to the Scriptures, and throws aside the Church's 
interpretation of them, appeals effectually to his own private 
judgment, and acknowledges no other guide; which I justly 
call an inexhaustible source of divisions, errors, and contra- 
dictions ; and I need not insist upon any other proof of it 
than the numberless jarring sects, all spawned from the " refor- 
mation," which set up this pernicious rule, and soon saw the 
natural fruits of it in as monstrous a Babel of confusion, as 
the infinite diversity of private judgments must unavoidably 
produce. The reader will find this shown at large towards 
the end of the third article. And so I leave every man 
of common sense to judge, whether (considering the sub- 
limity of divine mysteries on the one hand, and the nar- 
row compass of human reason, together with its proneness 
to be biased by interest or prejudice, on the other) — whether, 
I say, persons be not safer, as to their eternal salvation, under 
the conduct of pastors who reject a rule which is the fruitful 
source of errors, and adhere to the authority established by 
Christ himself for our guide, than they that are guided by 
ministers who, by a fundamental principle of their religion, 
are bound to own that Scriptures interpreted by private judg- 
ment is the only rule of their faith. 

9thly. No man can hope to work his salvation in a church 
which has no lawful ministry ; that is, no lawful power to 
preach the word, and administer the sacraments; and, 

lOthly. The only Church in which a Christian can hope 
to work his salvation is that which derives its doctrine from 
Christ and his apostles. 

If, therefore, I prove these two points, viz., that none of 



238 

the " reformed" churches have a lawful ministry, and that the 
Roman Catholic Church is the only church upon earth that 
derives its doctrine from Christ and his apostles, the undeni- 
able consequence will be, 1, that salvation cannot be hoped 
for in any of the " reformed " churches ; and, 2, that it can 
only be attained in the Roman Catholic Church. 

The proof of these two important points is the whole 
subject of the following small treatise ; and I may truly say 
it goes all at once to the very bottom of the cause, in such a 
manner, that, without the examination of any one particular 
point of doctrine, both the learned and unlearned may not 
only clearly see what churches are to be avoided as so many 
rocks on which their eternal salvation will most certainly suf- 
fer shipwreck, but likewise find that Church, which alone is 
a safe harbor, wherein it may be secured. 

The endeavors I have used to set this whole matter in its 
clearest light will perhaps displease such insincere souls as 
hate the light, because it incommodes them. But I hope 
they will be acceptable to all sincere lovers of truth, whatever 
persuasion they are of; and it is for these alone the fol- 
lowing sheets are designed, which have no other end in view 
than to mark out to them the way of truth and salvation ; 
that they either may walk on steadily in that way, if they 
find themselves already in it, or enter into it, if choice or 
education has misled them into a wrong path. 



ARTICLE I. 

No lawful Ministry without a lawful Mission. 

Every civil government has within itself a source from 
which all lawful power and authority is derived ; and no par- 
ticular member of any society can lay claim to any part of 
this power or authority, unless it flows to him from that 
source. No man, for example, is treated as a public minister, 
unless he shows his credentials from the prince or state that 
sends him ; nor respected and obeyed as a magistrate, unless 
he be called to that dignity, and vested with that authority 
annexed to it by superior powers. Nay, it would be highly 
ridiculous in any man to intrude himself into the very meanest 
office even of a private family, without the express or presumed 
consent of the master or mistress of it. This is the estab- 
lished order of the government of the world, and so mani- 
festly conformable to reason and common sense, that without 
it all states or kingdoms, or even lesser societies, would be no 
better than so many Babels of disorder and confusion. 

Now, the same principle is applicable to the Church as well 
as secular states, but with this material difference, viz., that, 
as every secular state formed itself, at first, by common consent, 
into a civil society, so had it the liberty to choose what form 
of government and establish what laws it pleased for the pub- 
lic good. But the Church, as such, is a divine society, as 
having a divine origin. For it was not established by men, 
but by God himself. Jesus Christ, God and man, was its im- 
mediate founder and lawgiver ; and he is still its supreme 
head, governor, and sovereign pastor. It is, therefore, bound 
to keep those laws, that form of government under him, and 
that method of conveying it down, which was at first estab- 
lished by him. Nor is there any power upon earth can 



240 

change the laws or dispense with the conditions, or deviate 
from the ways and methods, he has marked out to us. 

Here, then, we need but consult the word of God to inform 
ourselves upon what footing the conveyance of the ecclesiasti- 
cal ministry is established by him. Let us first hear Christ 
himself speak in the following sacred words : " Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, He that enter eth not by the door into the 
sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a 
thief and robber." John, c. 10, v. ]. Here all are de- 
clared thieves and robbers, that is, usurpers of the sacred 
ministry, who " enter not by the door." And lest we should 
mistake the meaning of this figurative expression, he explains 
it thus, (v. 7 :) " Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door 
of the sheep." So that whoever enters upon the ministry, 
and has not his mission from Christ, either immediately, as 
the apostles had, or mediately, by deriving it from them or 
their lawful successors, are here marked out in the character 
of thieves and robbers. Whence it plainly follows that any 
society of men, let them be as numerous as they please, or 
boast of their purity as much as they please, can never be 
a true Church, if it has not a ministry originally derived from 
Christ by an uninterrupted succession of lawful pastors ; be- 
cause the true Church can never be without true pastors ; and 
without a ministry originally derived from Christ by an unin- 
terrupted succession in the same communion, there can be 
no true pastors. 

This, then, is the foundation of the ecclesiastical ministry 
laid by Christ himself; and St. Paul, his faithful apostle and 
interpreter, teaches the same doctrine in his Epistle to the 
Romans, c. 10, v. 15. " How shall they preach except they 
be sent ? " For if they be not sent, they can be nothing else 
but intruders into the sheepfold, usurpers of the sacred min- 
istry, and, in a word, thieves and robbers. 

But the example of Christ himself is most certainly of the 
greatest weight to convince us that no man can legally enter 
upon the sacred ministry, except he be sent according to the 
order established by God. For if the Son of God took not 



241 

upon him the preaching of the gospel but as sent by his 
eternal Father, what sacrilegious arrogance and presumption 
must it then be in men to assume to themselves this sacred 
function without a commission from any lawful authority? 
Our Savior therefore, to render us sensible of the necessity 
of a true mission for every minister of the gospel, judged it 
requisite, upon several occasions, to prove his own mission to 
the Jews. I shall omit a great many passages for brevity's 
sake, and only quote a few from St. John, who writes thus : 
" Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the 
temple and taught : and the Jews marvelled, saying, How 
knoweth this man letters, having never learned ? Jesus an- 
swered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that 
sent me. If any man will do his will, he will know of the 
doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. 
He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory, but he 
that seeketh his glory that sent me, the same is true, and no 
unrighteousness is in him." John, c. 7, v. 14, 15, &c. 

However, the Jews persisting still to question his authority, 
he answered them, " I am not come of myself, but he that sent 
me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him, for I am 
from him, and he hath sent me." v. 28, 29. 

Again, the following words are very remarkable : " He 
that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that 
judgeth him. For I have not spoken of myself; but the 
Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I 
should say and what I should speak." John, c. 12, v. 48, 49. 

Here our Savior declares positively that he spoke nothing 
but what he was commanded to speak by his Father. And 
this implies no less than that, if he had preached any doctrine 
either contrary to, or beyond, the commission he had received 
from his Father, (which indeed the impeccability of his 
sacred person rendered impossible,) he would have preached 
without the authority requisite for that function. 

However, to render us still more sensible of the necessity 
of an uncontested mission, .our Savior would prove his by a 
great number of illustrious miracles, and more particularly by 
21 



242 

that which, for its circumstances, appeared more illustrious 
than the rest. For, though all the miracles of his life were to 
show from whom he came, as they did by the divine power 
and goodness which shined in them, yet the raising of Laza- 
rus, and the loud prayer he made to his Father before it, 
were not only intended, but expressly declared, to be done for 
the notifying and proving of that mission, from which alone 
all other true missions were to be derived afterwards to the 
end of the world. For St. John expressly tells us, that, when 
he was upon the point of raising Lazarus, " He lifted up 
his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast 
heard me. And I know that thou hearest me always. But 
because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may 
believe that thou hast sent me." John, c. 11, v. 41, 42. 
It is plain our Savior here proves his mission from the mirac- 
ulous power given him to raise Lazarus, as being a divine 
and public testimony of it, since it was asked, for that very 
end, in the people's own hearing ; and no sooner asked but 
granted. 

Thus did our Savior take care not only to assert but prove 
his mission, in order to mark out clearly to his Church the 
sacred source from whence the lawful exercise of the ecclesi- 
astical ministry must indispensably flow. Christ himself had 
his mission from God, " who gave him all power in heaven 
and in earth." Matt. c. 28, v. 19. He communicated it to 
his apostles. " As my Father sent me, even so I send you." 
John, c. 20, v. 21. And again : " Go ye therefore and teach 
all nations, baptizing them," &c. Matt. c. 28, v. 19. The 
apostles, as the Church increased, ordained bishops and 
priests, according to the power they had received from Christ, 
and assigned to each of them the particular churches they 
were to feed and govern. These took care to transmit the 
same power to their successors, as these did likewise to theirs. 
And so the sacred ministry of governing and feeding the 
flock of Christ, by preaching the word and administering the 
sacraments, has been handed down by an uninterrupted sue- 



243 

cession from the apostles throughout all ages to the present 
time, and will be continued in the same manner to the end of 
the world, according to St. Paul. Ephes. c. 4, v. 11, 12, 13. 

For this reason, Tertullian, in his Book of Prescriptions, 
(c. 37,) pressed the heretics of his time with this question : 
" Qui estis vos ? Quando ct uncle vcnistis ? " Who are you? 
When and whence did you come 1 Whence have you your 
mission ? How can you prove that you have entered by the 
door, and are not thieves and robbers 1 The same Tertul- 
lian (c. 3) writes thus : " Let them produce (says he) the 
origin of their church, let them give us a list of their bishops, 
drawn dozen by succession from the beginning, so that their 
first bishop had cither an apostle, or an apostolical man, contin- 
uing to the end, in the communion of the apostles for his pred- 
ecessor. 1 ' In effect, the constant practice of the ancient 
fathers, to prove against heretics the truth of the doctrine 
taught by the Catholic Church, was by showing this uninter- 
rupted succession of Catholic bishops and pastors, in the 
same communion from the apostles, and, on the contrary, to 
defy their adversaries to show any such succession of bishops 
teaching the discriminating doctrine of their sects. 

St. Cyprian (Epist. 76) says of Novatian that " he was not 
in the Church, nor could he be counted a bishop, (as to the 
power of jurisdiction,) because, despising apostolical tradition, 
he came of himself, and succeeded to nobody, to wit, in his 
own communion." 

" A succession of bishops," says St. Austin, (Contra Epist. 
Fund. c. 4,) " descending from the see of St. Peter to the 
present episcopacy, holds me in the Catholic Church." And 
St. Optatus writes thus to the Donatists : " Since you pre- 
tend to be the Church of God, show the origin of your 
bishops" For if they had pretended to produce a catalogue 
of bishops descending from the apostles, they would have 
been answered that those were not bishops of the Donatist, 
but Catholic Church, and that therefore Donatus himself was 
the first bishop of the separate church he had set up, and 



244 

could show no succession of bishops that were before him of 
his communion. 

This shows plainly what the ancient fathers thought of all 
communions that had separated themselves from the Catholic 
Church, and that they regarded them no otherwise than as 
usurpers of the ecclesiastical ministry, as invaders of the 
priestly office, and, in a word, as societies destitute of all 
power and authority of either preaching the word or adminis- 
tering the sacraments. The consequence whereof is, that 
they were no part of the true Church of Christ, from which 
the true ministry is wholly inseparable. Nay, Mr. Lesly, a 
writer of the Church of England, well known, has the same 
contemptible opinion of all the dissenting Protestant churches 
as the fathers had of the heretical and schismatical com- 
munions of their times. For, in his Treatise of private Judg- 
ment and Authority, (p. 222,) he writes thus : " The dissenters 
have no commission or succession to show : they have thrust 
themselves as guides upon the road towards heaven, not above 
140 years ago, in utter contempt and opposition to all the 
guides of God's appointment from the days of the apostles. ,> 
Whence he justly concludes that they have no authority at all 
either to preach the word, or administer the holy sacraments, 
which God has instituted, or to bless in his name. 

Here Mr. Lesly agrees exactly with me in the important 
principle I have laid down ; and I should be glad he agreed 
as well with me in the application of it. But how unjust 
are men in their balances ! How clearsighted are they in 
seeing the defects of others, and how blind at the same time 
not to see their own in the very same kind ! 

He tells us, first, the dissenters have no commission or suc- 
cession to show. I grant they have not. But how will he 
show the commission or succession of the Protestant Church 
of England? since it is an undeniable fact that, for nine 
hundred years together before the pretended reformation of 
that church, all her bishops were in communion with the 
Church of Rome, and agreed with her in sacraments, doctrine, 



245 

and practice; as in monastical vows, in praying for the 
relief of the dead, in the invocation of saints, in adoring the 
blessed sacrament, and receiving the definitions of former 
councils for transubstantiation, the veneration of holy images 
and relics, and the pope's supremacy, &<c. 

First, then, I ask from whom the first Protestant bishops of 
the Church of England had their commission to teach a doc- 
trine directly opposite, in all the fore-mentioned articles, to that 
of all the Catholic bishops, their predecessors. If they pre- 
tend to have had it from them, the thing is wholly incredible, 
as will appear more fully hereafter. Yet I cannot imagine 
how they came by it in any other way, unless it was sent 
them immediately from heaven, and so their mission was ex- 
traordinary, like that of the apostles ; which also will not be 
easily believed without good proofs, and I fear it will be a 
hard task to find any. 

I ask, secondly, from whom the first Protestant bishops of 
the Church of England derived their succession ; that is, 
from what bishop of their own communion ; since all the 
English bishops before them were Roman Catholics, that is, 
in the communion of the bishop of Rome. If they allege 
the validity of their ordination, and their being in possession 
of the ancient episcopal sees of their Catholic predecessors, 
who certainly derived their succession from the apostles, I 
answer that, though their ordination were valid, (which we 
utterly deny,) this would be insufficient to prove their succes- 
sion to be truly apostolical ; because there is something more 
required to make good this title than a valid ordination, and 
the possession of the episcopal sees of their predecessors ; 
viz., their being members of the same church and commu- 
nion with those whose successors they pretend to be. For 
otherwise it will follow that the Arian and Donatist bishops 
were the true successors of the apostles : because their 
ordination was most certainly valid, and they filled the ancient 
sees of the Catholic bishops, their predecessors. But since it 
would be highly absurd to grant this, (because persons cut off 
by heresy and excommunication from the Church founded by 
21* 



246 

the apostles cannot possibly be called their true successors,) it 
is manifest the English Protestant clergy will never prove 
their succession to be apostolical, unless they can convince us 
that they are members of the same church and communion with 
the Catholic bishops that went before them, any more than the 
Arian and Donatist bishops formerly were. Hence it plainly 
follows, that if some expedient be not found out to fill up a 
gap of nine hundred years, in all which space of time there 
were no Protestant bishops or parsons in all Great Britain, 
they may as well pretend to derive their succession from 
Aaron as from the apostles. 

But to return back to Mr. Lesly. He tells us, 2dly, that " the 
dissenters thrust themselves as guides upon the road towards 
heaven, not above a hundred and forty years ago." And pray 
how many years ago is it that the bishops and parsons of the 
reformed Church of England appeared first as guides upon the 
road towards heaven? If Mr. Lesly be unwilling to satisfy 
his Protestant brethren in a point of that importance, I shall 
do it for him. The pretended reformation of England began 
about the year 1533, and Queen Elizabeth came not to the 
crown till the year 155S. So that it was not finished till 
some years after the middle of that century. Now, if we 
count back 140 years from the time that Mr. Lesly wrote his 
book " Of private Judgment and Authority," we may, by a 
very easy computation, discover the exact epocha of time 
when his Protestant bishops and pastors appeared first "as 
guides upon the road to heaven ; " and the difference of age 
between his church and that of the dissenters will be found 
to be so inconsiderable as no ways deserved his notice. We 
are likewise sure the Protestant guides of the Church of 
England were never sent or sought for by any of the Popish 
bishops, their predecessors ; and so they likewise sympathize 
in this with the dissenters, that they " thrust themselves as 
guides upon the road to heaven ; " unless they will claim an 
extraordinary mission immediately from God ; for which if they 
can show the testimony of miracles, as the apostles did, we 
shall be ready to believe them. 



247 

Lastly, Mr. Lesly tells us that the dissenters thrust them- 
selves as guides upon the road, in utter contempt and opposi- 
tion to all the guides of God's appointment from the days of 
the apostles. It seems, then, that there were guides of God's 
appointment from the very time of the apostles till the pre- 
tended reformation ; and if they were of God's appointment, 
they could not be false guides. But of what religion were 
these guides of God's appointment 1 Were they Protestants 
or Papists 1 They could not be Protestants before there were 
any reformed churches in being : it is plain, then, they were all 
Papists before the reformation; at least in the island of Great 
Britain, where no religion but Popery was ever professed for 
900 years together, till the change of it introduced by Henry 
VIII., carried on by Edward VI., and finished by Queen 
Elizabeth. It was, therefore, effected in utter contempt and 
opposition to all the bishops and pastors, who had been the 
guides of God's appointment for 990 years together. 

And how, then, can Mr. Lesly reproach the dissenters with 
this unwarrantable proceeding, since it is plain they only fol- 
lowed the example his church had set them ? Nay, may we 
not legally conclude against him, as he does against the dis- 
senters, that his church " has no authority at all either to 
preach the word or administer the holy sacraments which 
God has instituted, or to bless in his name"? And so, ac- 
cording to his own principle, she is no part of the true Church 
of Christ, as being destitute of a lawful mission, and guilty of 
having usurped the sacred ministry without commission or 
succession. 

But let that be as it will, it is manifest, both from Scripture 
and tradition, that there can be no lawful ministry without a 
lawful mission; which is precisely the principle I have estab- 
lished. Nor do I know any Protestant so unreasonable as to 
deny it, though they all differ from us in the application of it. 
On the contrary, all the reformed churches labor with their 
utmost force to prove the legality of their mission, some one 
way, some another ; and it shall now be my business to prove 
that it is impossible for any of them to make good their title ; 



248 

which if I do, every Protestant, whatever reformed church 
he is a member of, must be sensible that he is out of the way 
of salvation ; because salvation cannot be attained to in a 
church in which there is no lawful administration of the 
sacraments, or under the conduct of guides who have not 
" entered into the sheepfold by the door," and are stigmatized 
by Christ himself with the infamous character of thieves and 
robbers. 



ARTICLE II. 

The Disagreement amongst Protestants concerning their 

Mission. 

Disagreement and contradictions, in a dispute about a 
title which, for its importance, ought to be clear and uncon- 
tested, are, of themselves, a strong proof of its nullity. There is 
not, for example, a bishop or inferior pastor in the communion 
of the Church of Rome but can prove the validity of his title 
to the sacred ministry as clearly as an officer in the army can 
show his commission for the respective post he is in. And it 
cannot be doubted but the reformed churches would prove 
theirs with the same uncontested evidence, and there would 
be the same harmony amongst them in this point as there is 
amongst Roman Catholics, if their title to the ministry were 
grounded upon a solid foundation, like that of the Church of 
Rome. Whereas, on the contrary, nothing perplexes Protes- 
tants more than the question Tertullian puts to the heretics 
of his time, Who are you ? Whence did you come ? That 
is, when we press them to give an account of their mission 
or vocation to the ministry of the gospel. Because the first 
reformers having broken off from the communion of the whole 
world, (as both Luther and Calvin attest in their writings,) it 
is hard to conceive what way a lawful mission could possibly 
be conveyed to them. And if the first reformers had no law- 
ful mission, their successors can have none. 



249 

Here, then, they all find themselves involved in an inextri- 
cable labyrinth of difficulties, what way soever they turn them- 
selves ; and they vary in their opinions about it just according 
as they are pressed on this or that side by the arguments of 
their adversaries. They who chiefly consider the difficulty of 
maintaining their pretensions to an ordinary mission fly for 
shelter to an extraordinary one ; and they who find them- 
selves driven out of this intrenchment endeavor to make the 
best shift they can by having recourse to an ordinary one. 

As Luther and Calvin, with some others, were the apostles 
of the reformation, so we find them, of course, at the head of 
that party which stood up for an extraordinary mission. For 
they considered that they had set up a new gospel, a new 
church government, a new ministry, a new communion, and 
had separated themselves from all Christian societies in the 
world. They judged it, therefore, the best and safest course 
they could take, never to trouble their heads with proving 
their ordinary mission, which they plainly saw was a de- 
fenceless cause ; and so resolved to set a good bold face upon 
the matter, and challenge to themselves an immediate mission 
to reform the church, not from men, but from God himself. 
But lest those who may be sensible of the folly and extrava- 
gance of this pretension should suspect the truth of it, and 
imagine I pretend to fight against my own shadow, I shall 
prove it with the utmost evidence from their own writings. 

First. Martin Luther speaks thus of himself: "I am sure," 
says he, " I have my doctrine from heaven." Torn. 2, fol. 
333. And again, " I was the first to whom God vouchsafed 
to reveal the things which have been preached to you." 
Tom. 7, fol. 274. And, torn. 2, fol. 305, he writes thus : 
" Since now I am certain I preach the word of God, it is not 
fit I should want a title for the recommencing of the word 
and work of the ministry, to which 1 am called by God ; 
which I have not received of men, nor by men, but by the 
gift of God and revelation of Jesus Christ." This is a plain 
and positive averring that he had not his doctrine by succes- 
sion from any that went before him, nor, by consequence, from 



250 

the Apostolical Church, which surely was before him ; and 
this alone suffices to condemn him and his doctrine, unless he 
can prove effectually that he had it immediately from heaven. 

Calvin is full as plain upon the matter, (Epist. 190,) to the 
king of Poland, where he writes thus : " Since, by the pope's 
tyranny, the succession has been interrupted, the Church could 
not be reestablished without a new ministry. So that the 
commission our Savior gave us to assemble the churches was 
wholly extraordinary. And since the supporters of true piety 
appeared suddenly in an extraordinary manner, their vocation 
is not to be examined by the common rules, but they were 
raised immediately by God, to the end that, having established 
the churches, they should ordain other pastors to succeed 
them." 

In another work, entitled, " The true Method of reforming 
the Church," he writes in the following manner : " I have 
already said that an ordinary vocation is necessary when the 
state of the Church is uncorrupted, or at least tolerable. But 
will this tie up the hand of God, and hinder him from raising 
in an extraordinary manner prophets and other ministers to 
reestablish his Church, when it is utterly ruined ? " He then 
proceeds to apply this to the first reformers, as men raised by 
God in an extraordinary manner. 

Theodorus Beza, who succeeded Calvin in the government 
of the church of Geneva, maintained the same in his confer- 
ence with the cardinal of Lorain, at Poissy, where he tells his 
adversary that, though some of the first reformers might have 
insisted upon their mission as derived from the Church of 
Rome, yet they voluntarily renounced their ordination as the 
mark of the beast, and chose rather to depend upon an ex- 
traordinary vocation ; because the ordinary mission was in 
reality extinguished in the Roman Church, in which there 
was nothing but a horrible disorder and confusion. Hist. 
Eccl. p. 580. 

But he explains himself more fully in a dispute he had with 
a Protestant writer called Adrian Saravias, who, in a book 
written by him " Concerning the Degrees of Ministers of the 



251 

Gospel," maintained that particularly those of the first reform- 
ers who had been ordained in the Church of Rome stood in 
no need of an extraordinary mission, but that the ordinary 
one they had received by virtue of their ordination sufficed. 
And as for others, he said that every Christian well instructed 
ih the Scripture had both a power and obligation to reform 
all abuses and errors that crept into the church. 

This latter part of his opinion Beza refutes by telling him 
that, at that rate, " every man that has but a good opinion of 
his own learning will, under pretence of reforming the church, 
set up for a preacher of a new gospel, and form separate as- 
semblies, as Anabaptists and Libertines are wont to do." 
" But God forbid," says he, " that we should open a gate to 
such a pernicious licentiousness." And so far he had most 
certainly truth on his side. 

But he rejects the other part of Saravias's opinion with a 
great deal of heat. " Pray," says he, " what sort of ordinary 
vocation is that which you attribute to all but a few of those 
who were raised by God 1 You cannot but mean a Papistical 
vocation, since it appears plainly enough, from what you say, 
that, if the bishops of France should now withdraw them- 
selves and their churches from the pope's tyranny, and purge 
themselves of all idolatry and superstition, they would stand 
in no need of any other vocation than what they have already. 
What ! can we imagine that Papistical ordinations, which are 
no better than an infamous commerce with the Romish harlot, 
and more polluted than the pay of prostitutes, forbid by God 
to be offered in his temple, which empowers some to corrupt 
the gospel instead of preaching it, and others only to offer 
sacrifice, which is a most horrible abomination, — can we im- 
agine, I say, that these wicked ordinations should stand good 
in such a manner, that, as often as God gives the grace to any 
of these spurious bishops to come over to true Christianity, 
all the impurity of their ordinations should be immediately 
purged away ? But with what face or confidence will any 
one, whose heart God has touched, pretend to detest Popery 
without abjuring the irregular ordination he has received? 



252 

Or, if he abjures it, how can he assume an authority to preach 
in virtue of it ? I do not deny, indeed, that when such per- 
sons are found to be well instructed, edifying in their lives, 
and capable of feeding the flock, they may be reordained, and 
of spurious bishops rendered legitimate pastors." 

It is plain, then, what Calvin and Beza thought of the mis- 
sion of the first reformers ; which is still more confirmed by 
the profession of faith required to be made by the Hugonots 
of France, in the composing whereof these two reforming 
apostles had the chief hand. The 31st article of it is thus 
worded : " We believe that no man ought by his own au- 
thority to arrogate to himself the government of the church ; 
but that it ought to be conferred by election, as far as is 
possible and God will permit ; which exception we add ex- 
pressly, because it has been necessary sometimes, and even in 
our days, (in which the state of the Church was interrupted,) 
that God should raise persons in an extraordinary manner to 
reestablish the Church fallen into ruin and desolation." 

This article contains three things : 1. The general rule ; 
2. The exception from this general rule ; and, 3. The appli- 
cation of this exception to the first reformers. The general 
rule is, that " no man ought, by his own authority, to arrogate 
to himself the government of the Church, but it ought to be 
conferred by election." The exception is, that " God permits 
sometimes that the observance of this rule is impracticable, 
and then he raises men in an extraordinary manner to supply 
the defect of an ordinary vocation." And the application of 
this exception to the first reformers is, that " it has been 
necessary sometimes, and even in our days, (in which the 
state of the Church was interrupted,) to raise persons in an 
extraordinary manner to reestablish the Church, fallen into 
ruin and desolation." 

Whence it is plain that, if the first reformers had exercised 
the ministry by virtue of an ordinary vocation, they would 
have been comprehended within the general rule, and not 
within the exception. Whereas the 31st article puts them in 
the exception, in supposing them to have been in such cir- 






253 

cumstances that God did not permit the ordinary vocation to 
take place. 

Conformably to this article, the synod of Gap, held anno 
1603, decreed that it should be maintained in its full force 
without insisting upon an ordinary vocation derived from the 
Church of Rome. The decree of that synod was delivered 
in the following words: "Concerning the 31st article of our 
profession of faith, the question being put, Upon what founda- 
tion the authority our first pastors had of preaching and re- 
forming the Church was to be settled, — whether it should be 
upon their mission derived from the Church of Rome, — the 
assembly resolved that it should be wholly ascribed to an 
extraordinary vocation, whereby God moved them interiorly 
in an extraordinary manner, and not to the little they had 
still left of the corrupt mission of the Church of Rome." 

And in the same profession of faith, Art. 28, they declare 
that " they condemn all Popish assemblies, because the pure 
word of God is banished out of them, and the holy sacra- 
ments are corrupted, bastardized, falsified, or, rather, entirely 
annihilated; and all idolatry and superstition are practised in 
them ; and that whoever follows their practices, or communi- 
cates with them, cuts himself off from the mystical body of 
Jesus Christ." 

From all these proofs, it is manifest that I have not wronged 
the truth in attributing both to Luther and Calvin, and many 
of their followers, the folly and extravagance of pretending to 
an extraordinary mission, or immediate vocation from God. 
But those who followed them some years after, finding it im- 
possible to stand their ground against the force of the argu- 
ments urged by Catholic divines against this presumptuous 
and exorbitant pretension of their first reformers, were 
reduced to the necessity of taking up with an ordinary mis- 
sion, and maintaining that their forefathers had no other. 

But here, again, they are forced to run into disagreeing sys- 
tems. Some of those who are for an ordinary mission, being 
convinced that in all ages it was continued by the succession 
of bishops, stand up for episcopal ordination, and maintain, 



254 

consequently, that there can be no lawful ministry without it. 
And thus far they agree with the Church of Rome. But 
then, as to the exercise of episcopal or pastoral jurisdiction, 
some (as the Protestants of Sweden and Denmark) will have 
it depend upon the superior consistory ; others, as Cranmer, 
on the prince's will and pleasure ; and others assert, again, 
its independency on the civil power, which is the opinion of 
many in England ; and these derive its source from the 
Church of Rome. 

But the Protestants of France, not believing episcopacy to 
be of divine institution, have taken up a system wholly differ- 
ent from these. The famous minister Claude, to prove the 
Protestant mission to be ordinary, thinks it sufficient to show 
that their first pastors were established by the people ; in 
whom he places the source of authority and vocation. And, 
therefore, in his Defence of the Reformation, (p. 345,) he 
maintains that, provided the people call a man to the ministry, 
and he gives his consent, this gives him a lawful mission 
without any other formality. 

The minister Jurieu, in his answer to Mons. Nicol, (p. 573,) 
lays this for the foundation of his system, viz., that as every 
civil society has a natural right to choose its own officers or 
magistrates for the civil government, and make what laws it 
thinks most fitting for its preservation, so every church has 
no less a natural right (that is, independent of any divine in- 
stitution) to choose its own guides and rulers, and make its 
own laws for the same end. 

But this is putting the Church of Christ upon the same 
footing with the secular state, without any regard to the differ- 
ence there is betwixt them both as to their first institution, 
and the end of it. For (as I have already observed) all 
secular states are mere political societies formed by men, and 
tending to an end that is merely human. They are, there- 
fore, subject to the will and pleasure of men, who may choose 
what rulers, and install them by what methods, they think 
fitting. But the Church, as such, is a society which has 
Christ himself for its immediate founder and lawgiver. He is. 



255 

therefore, tied down to the laws his infinite wisdom has estab- 
lished for its government, and the continuation and convey- 
ance of its ministry ; so that every national church, as it is a 
part of the Church in general, and, by consequence, subject to 
such laws as regard the whole Church, is bound to follow 
those laws. 

The end of its establishment is likewise wholly spiritual, to 
wit, the salvation of souls ; which end cannot be attained but 
by the supernatural means of grace, nor grace, but by the sac- 
raments ; which Christ (who is the only master both of his 
grace and of the way of conveying it to us) has instituted as so 
many channels for the conveyance of it to our souls; and the 
administration whereof, together with the preaching of the 
holy word, he committed to his apostles and their successors 
descending from them by a spiritual generation, according to 
the methods established by him. And so Mr. Jurieu's fine 
parallel between a national church and a national state is a 
mere empty flourish, fit only to impose upon the ignorant laity, 
whose vanity it agreeably flatters, by making them the source 
of all authority, both civil and ecclesiastic. 

Thus we see the disagreement and confusion amongst 
Protestants concerning a point of the greatest importance, 
and upon which the whole superstructure of the reforma- 
tion depends as upon a foundation, without which it cannot 
possibly subsist. It has been fully shown, 1. That nothing 
less than an extraordinary mission was claimed by the first re- 
formers ; 2. That, though some of their followers endeavored 
at first to support this extravagant pretension, the greatest 
part have since rejected it as a defenceless cause, and stand 
up for an ordinary mission ; and, 3. That these advocates 
for an ordinary mission are all at variance amongst them- 
selves about the manner of its conveyance, and put to the 
hardest shifts to patch it up as well as they can. 

I shall, therefore, now proceed to prove that the first ref- 
ormers had no mission at all, either ordinary or extraordinary, 
but climbed up to the sheepfold by another way, like thieves 
and robbers. And if the first reformers had no mission, I 



256 

am sure their successors in the sacred ministry can have 
none ; because no man can transmit to another what he 
has not himself. Nay, we may as well say that a son can 
inherit a good estate of a father who has not a groat to leave 
him. So that, if the very fathers of the reformation had not 
a lawful mission, it is an inconceivable riddle how their chil- 
dren should come by it; as it is inconceivable how the suc- 
cessors of the apostles should have had a lawful mission, if 
the apostles themselves had none. Whence I conclude that, 
if it be made manifest that the first reformers were wholly 
destitute of such a mission, it will likewise be fully proved 
that their successors are in the same unhappy condition ; 
and that they who are members of any of the reformed 
churches founded by them, as they continue to be abettors 
of their sacrilegious usurpation of the holy ministry, can be 
regarded no otherwise than as persons who are out of the 
true Church of Christ, in which alone salvation can be 
attained. 



ARTICLE III. 

The first Reformers had no extraordinary Mission. 

Whenever it has pleased God to raise men in an extraor- 
dinary manner to be the guides of his people, (as he raised 
Moses to lead them out of Egypt, and as he raised the apos- 
tles to preach the evangelical law to the whole world,) he 
never failed to distinguish them by such incontestable marks 
of their extraordinary mission as were a solid motive to the 
people to form a rational judgment upon, that they were un- 
doubtedly sent by God, and that he had bestowed those marks 
upon them as a declaration and testimony of his will, that 
they were bound to acknowledge them for their pastors, and 
suffer themselves to be guided by them. And this is so per- 
fectly conformable to the usual methods of God's infinite 



257 

wisdom and goodness in providing means proper for their 
respective ends, (especially in relation to things immedi- 
ately appertaining to the salvation of souls redeemed with the 
sacred blood of Jesus Christ,) that without it the people 
would not be guarded against the seduction of false guides, 
who might equally pretend to an immediate commission from 
God ; and so every impostor might set up for an inspired 
man, and put his cheats upon the people under the cover of 
this religious mask. 

It is therefore necessary the people should have some sure 
marks to distinguish lawful pastors from seducers ; but more 
especially when new doctrines are proposed to them, whereof 
there is but one example either recorded in the New Testa- 
ment, or ever allowed of by the Catholic Church, viz., the 
first preaching of the evangelical law, which doubtless was a 
new law and a new doctrine ; and therefore the persons 
chosen immediately by God for this great work were clearly 
distinguished from impostors or seducers by three marks, 
to wit, holiness of life in a most eminent degree, holiness 
or purity of doctrine, and the gift of miracles. These were 
the marks by which the faithful were fully assured that the 
apostles had their commission from God. For nothing was 
more holy than their lives, nothing purer than their doctrine ; 
and God declared himself to be the author of it by giving 
them the power of working the most stupendous miracles in 
confirmation of it. 

But I find nothing of these marks of an extraordinary 
vocation in any of the first reformers. For as to holiness of 
life, the very best amongst them were only so because they 
were not quite so bad as the rest, and their greatest admirers 
could never commend them either for austerity of life, or 
any one eminent virtuous quality that raised them above the 
ordinary level of mankind. Nay, there was not one amongst 
them, but was guilty of the deadly sin of calumny in a very 
high degree, in aspersing and misrepresenting the doctrine 
of their mother Church, as the only means to give some 
color to their apostasy. 
22* 



258 

But some of them were eminent for nothing but the 
viciousness of their lives. Witness Martin Luther, the very 
patriarch of the reformation, who has left us in his own 
writings such monuments of his haughty, scurrilous, unmor- 
tified, nay, even vicious and impious disposition, that his 
greatest enemies cannot paint him in blacker colors than he 
has done himself; as will appear more fully hereafter, when 
I come to speak of his doctrine. 

Carolostadius, another head reformer, is a second instance 
of this truth. He was the first amongst the reforming priests 
who married publicly ; and Melancthon, who was personally 
acquainted with him, gives him the character of an ignorant 
and brutal man, void of piety and humanity, and rather a Jew 
than a Christian, though of a crafty and turbulent nature. 
Lib. Testim. Pref. Most excellent qualifications to fit a man 
for a reformer of the Church of Christ, called by God in an 
extraordinary manner ! 

I omit others, to avoid prolixity, or appearing to take a 
pleasure in exposing the memory of persons who have long 
since had their trial at the great tribunal. But I cannot for- 
bear saying something of Archbishop Cranmer, the first re- 
former of the Church of England, and Burnet's chief hero in 
his unfaithful history of the English reformation. But with 
all his skill in daubing over and disguising historical facts, 
he cannot hinder an impartial reader from forming this judg- 
ment of his hero, viz., that if, instead of reforming his 
mother Church, he had applied himself to reform the irregu- 
larities of his own life, it is probable England would not have 
become the theatre of those astonishing as well as scandal- 
ous disorders publicly committed during the thirteen last years 
of King Henry's reign, whereof he was the chief author by 
his pernicious counsels, and base compliances with that 
prince. And yet this man, who had delivered up the ecclesi- 
astical authority to profane secular hands, sacrificed the 
patrimony of the Church to the avarice of his prince, prosti- 
tuted his conscience to all his disorderly Justs, played the 
hypocrite and dissembled his religion for at least thirteen years 



259 

together, — this man, I say, was, in the following reign, in 
quality of primate of England, the chief ecclesiastical tool of 
the court in promoting all the changes of religion then set 
on foot, which were varnished over with the plausible name 
of a godly reformation. But is it, then, possible that God 
should be the author of a work, when such wicked men as 
these are the principal actors in it? Does he usually employ 
such instruments as these to bring about his designs of an 
extraordinary mercy ? If the thing be not absolutely impos- 
sible, it is at least without example; and I cannot but think 
it much more conformable both to reason and the usual 
methods of Providence, to say that, when wicked men prosper 
in their designs, they are not instruments chosen by God in 
his mercy, but suffered by him in his anger, as scourges to 
punish the sins of the people. 

It is plain, however, that the first reformers were wholly 
destitute of the first mark of an extraordinary vocation, to 
wit, holiness of life. Now, then, let us see whether they were 
distinguished from false guides by the second, to wit, holi- 
ness or purity of doctrine, which is wholly indispensable, be- 
cause false doctrines can only have the father of lies for their 
author. It is true, indeed, their boast at first, in order to im- 
pose upon the weakness and credulity of the people, was that 
they would teach nothing but the pure word of God. But 
they fell very short of performing this noble promise ; where- 
of I shall give some few remarkable instances. 

1st. The word of God teaches very plainly that vows made 
to God are binding. " When thou shalt vow a vow unto the 
Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it; that which is 
gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform." Deut. 
c. 23, v. 21, 23. And St. Paul says, of widows consecrated 
to God, that, " when they have begun to wax wanton against 
Christ, they will marry, having damnation to themselves, 
because they have cast off their first faith." 1 Tim. c. 5, v. 
11, 12. But the first reformers could not relish this holy 
doctrine, and made bold to give the word of God the lie, by 
teaching publicly that monastical vows did not oblige persons 



280 

of either sex that had made them. Accordingly, both pens 
and pulpits were employed to encourage the violation of them, 
and scriptural texts were taught to speak a language agree- 
able to flesh and blood. But because example is usually 
more prevalent than words, Martin Luther, an Austin friar, to 
the everlasting shame of the reformation, thought fit to con- 
firm by his own practice the doctrine he had preached ; and, 
lest the female sex should want an example of the same kind, 
he made choice of a nun for his bride, and so became guilty 
of a double sacrilege. Their example, how exorbitantly 
scandalous soever, was followed by many who otherwise 
would never have thought of changing their state. And thus 
apostate friars, priests, and nuns became the nursing fathers 
and mothers of the reformed churches, and the new gcspel 
was propagated, like mankind after the fall of Adam, not by a 
spiritual but carnal generation. 

2dly. It is manifest, from the word of God, that the state 
of virginity is encouraged by Christ, (Matt. c. 19, v. 11, 12,) 
and recommended in express terms by St. Paul. 1 Cor. c. 7, 
v. 7, 8. " I would," says he, " that all men were even as my- 
self. — 1 say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is 
good for them if they abide even as I." And again : " So, 
then, he that giveth his daughter in marriage doth well, but he 
that giveth her not doth better." v. 38. Whence it follows, 
by an undeniable consequence, that the state of perpetual 
virginity is possible by the help of God's grace ; for other- 
wise it could not be lawfully recommended. But Martin 
Luther scrupled not to contradict the word of God, and main- 
tain the absolute impossibility, nay, unlawfulness of it. 

Let us hear his own words. "God declares," says he, 
" that he will have no man live unmarried, but to be multi- 
plied. — If any man resolves to continue unmarried, Jet him 
put off the name of man, and make it appear that he is an 
angel or spirit; for to man God does not allow it by any 
means." Epist. ad Wolf. torn. 7, fol. 505, 1. 

Again, Serm. de Matrim., torn. 5, fol. 119, 1, he writes 
thus : " Increase, and multiply is not a precept, but more 



261 

than a precept, that is to say, a divine work, — which is as 
necessary as to be a man, and more necessary than to eat, 
drink, sleep and wake. — As it is not in my power not to be 
a man, so it is not in my choice to be without a woman ; and 
again, as it is not in thy power not to be a woman, so it is 
not in thy choice to live without a man." 

Nay, his extravagance went still farther. For though 
polygamy — that is, the plurality of wives or husbands — be 
positively condemned in the New Testament, he blushed not 
to teach the lawfulness of it ; as will appear from the following 
pieces. " What if one of the married couple," says he, " should 
refuse to be reconciled to the other, and would absolutely live 
separate, and the other, not being able to contain, should be 
forced to seek another consort — what must he do? May he 
contract with another ? I answer that without doubt he 
may." In 1 Cor. 7, torn. 5, fol. 3, 2. " Put the case," says 
he, " that one should fly from the other till there has been a 
third or fourth marriage — may the husband marry another wife 
as often as his former leaves him, so as to have ten or more of 
these deserters still alive? Again, may the wife have ten or 
more husbands who are all fled ? I answer that we cannot 
stop St. Paul's mouth, nor contend with such as think fit to 
make use of his doctrine as often as need requires. His 
words are plain, that a brother or sister is free from the law 
of marriage if the other departs, or will not consent to live 
with the other." Ibid., fol. 112, 2. 

" It is fit," says he again, " the husband should say, ' If thou 
wilt not, another will.' If the mistress refuses, let the maid 
come. But first he should a second and third time admonish 
his wife, and before others make known her obstinacy, that 
she may be publicly reprehended. If after that she refuses, 
divorce her and advance Esther in the place of Vashti." 
Ibid., fol. 123, 1. Strange doctrine for a man called by 
God in an extraordinary manner ! Nay, does it not manifestly 
show him to have been a most wicked impostor? 

His doctrine concerning free-will is no less contrary to the 
word of God; for he utterly denies it. " Free-will," says he, 



262 

u after sin, is no more than an empty name." Tom. 2, fol. 
3, 2. And in his treatise De servo Arbitrio, he writes thus : 
" Man's will is in the nature of a horse. If God sits upon it, it 
tends and goes as God would have it go — if the devil rides it, 
it tends and goes as the devil would have it ; nor can it choose 
which of the riders it will run to, or seek ; but the riders 
themselves strive who shall gain or possess it." Tom. 2, 
fol. 434, 2. And again, in the same treatise, (fol. 469, 2,) 
" If God foresaw," says he, " that Judas would be a traitor, 
Judas of necessity became a traitor ; neither was it in the 
power of Judas, or of any other creature, to do otherwise, or to 
change his will." Thus wrote this great reformer ; and he 
was followed in this impious doctrine by Calvin, who taught 
that grace necessitates the will, and that God is the author of 
all our sinful as well as virtuous actions; to which he added 
several extravagant errors of his own, which I omit for brev- 
ity's sake. 

Lastly, it is an incontestable truth, that doing penance for 
our sins is a duty commanded by the word of God. " Bring 
therefore forth fruits worthy of repentance," (Luke c. 3, v. 8,) 
which all the fathers have understood for penitential works to 
punish our sins. And again, " Except you do penance, you 
shall all perish." Luke, c. 13, v. 5. It is likewise a truth 
taught us by the word of God, that the narrow way is the 
only way to heaven. " Enter ye in at the strait gate," says 
Christ, " because strait is the gate and narrow is the way which 
leadeth unto life," (Matt. c. 7, v. 13, 15;) which he con- 
firms thus : " If any man will come after me, let him deny 
himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me." Luke, 
c. 9, v. 23. But if we examine the doctrine and methods of 
our new gospellers, we shall find them all busy in enlarging 
the way to heaven, instead of recommending the narrow one 
marked out in the gospel. 

The solemn fast of lent, of ember days and vigils, so 
venerable for their antiquity, were utterly abolished wher- 
ever Calvinism prevailed, and by degrees in all the reformed 
churches, Abstinence from flesh on Fridays and Saturdays 



263 

was represented as a superstitious distinction of meats con- 
demned by St. Paul. Penance was struck out of the num- 
ber of sacraments. Doing penitential works to satisfy for 
our sins was declaimed against as injurious to the infinite 
satisfaction of Christ. The austerity of monastical disci- 
pline, religious vows, and the single life of priests, were run 
down as an insupportable yoke imposed by the tyranny of 
popes ; and in consequence of this commodious doctrine, 
monks and friars were permitted to throw off their frocks, 
virgins their veils, and priests to exchange their breviaries 
for more diverting company. In a word, ecclesiastical au- 
thority was rendered precarious, and every man constituted 
judge of his own practice as well as faith. 

Strange reformation ! Is it, then, possible that doctrines so 
favorable to all the inclinations of corrupt nature should be 
inspired by the Holy Ghost 1 or that the teachers of them 
were commissioned by God to publish them in his name 1 I 
leave every one to form what judgment he thinks fitting upon 
the matter. However, let Protestants varnish things over as 
they please, they will find it a hard task to convince any man 
of common sense, that persons who were the authors of such 
scandalous relaxations in discipline and morality had either 
the Holy Ghost for their guide, or the word of God for their 
rule. The reason hereof is plain, because the Spirit of God 
is unchangeable, and cannot lead different persons, whom he 
owns for lawful ministers under him, through ways directly 
opposite to one another, so as to empower some to preach 
one sort of gospel, and others another. Now, I can scarce 
think any Protestant so unreasonable at present as to deny 
that those great lights of the Church of ancient times, viz., 
St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazi- 
anzen, St. Jerom, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, and St. 
Austin, were all guided by the Spirit of God. But did any 
of these great men rail at religious vows, or the celibacy of 
priests ? Did they exhort monks and virgins to quit their 
solitary cells and return to the world ? Did they abolish the 
fast of lent, and other fasts still kept up in the Church of 



264 

Rome ? Or were they declared enemies to confessing our 
sins and doing penance for them? Alas! we need but cast 
an eye upon their writings, or the history of their lives, to 
find that, as they practised themselves all sorts of corporal 
austerities, so they constantly exhorted all the faithful under 
their conduct to do the same. They wrote whole volumes in 
praise of virginity, and persuaded as many as they could of 
both sexes to embrace that holy state. And yet it is certain 
these great saints and pillars of the Church were guided by 
the Spirit of God. And how, then, is it possible that the 
same Holy Spirit should in after times conduct men into a 
way as opposite to it as black is to white? This argument 
proves so convincingly that the pretended reformation was 
not the work of God, that, unless a man be resolved to bid 
defiance to the clearest truth, it is morally impossible not to 
yield to it. 

Bat what is still a further confirmation that the hand of 
God had no part in this work, and that the authors of it un- 
dertook it without any commission from him, is, that there is 
no example, since the coming of Christ, of persons truly 
called by God to labor in his vineyard for the conversion of 
souls, either from infidelity to the Christian faith, or from sin- 
ful lives to repentance, but the generality of their first dis- 
ciples or followers were remarkable for such solid piety and 
true Christian zeal, that God Almighty seemed to take a 
pleasure in pouring forth a plentiful benediction of grace, not 
only on the laborers themselves, but likewise on their spirit- 
ual children, whom they had begot " in Jesus Christ through 
the gospel ; " and this was equivalent to an authentic decla- 
ration, that they were the instruments of his mercies, and 
served under his authority. But we find the very reverse of 
all this in the first disciples or followers of Luther, Calvin, 
and other pretended reformers. 

Let us but compare their deluded proselytes with the true 
converts of the blessed apostles, and we shall see the truth 
of what I say in the clearest light. For, whereas nothing 
was ever more edifying than the lives of the first Chris- 



265 

tians converted by the apostles, nothing, on the contrary, 
was more disedifying than the lives of the first pretended 
converts from the Church of Rome made by the apostles 
of the reformation. We find them, indeed, very zealously 
busy in railing at the pope and his bishops, in running 
down religious vows, breaking the images of Christ and 
his apostles, pulling down pictures, destroying abbeys, plun- 
dering churches, and other such noble exploits; for all 
this sort of zeal either cost them nothing, or brought good 
money into their coffers ; but it extended not to the demol- 
ishing of vice, or pulling down the " idols of their sinful 
passions, such as luxury, avarice, intemperance, revenge," 
&c, all which escaped their religious zeal, and were not only 
left unreformed, but had the reins let loose to a greater licen- 
tiousness than ever. 

I doubt not but if Protestants shall happen to read this 
piece, they will immediately accuse me of slander. But let 
them have a little patience, and treat me as unmercifully as 
they please, if I do not produce witnesses above all excep- 
tion to vouch for the truth of what I say. First, then, let us 
hear Erasmus, who was an eye-witness of what happened, 
and writes thus in his letter against false gospellers. 

" You declaim bitterly," says he, " against the luxury of 
priests, the ambition of bishops, the tyranny of the pope, the 
frothy stuff of sophists, the devotions of Catholics, their fasts 
and masses; and you are not content to retrench the abuses 
that may be in these things, but will needs abolish them 
entirely ; that is, you will pluck up and destroy the good corn 
together with the tares. But what do you offer us better in 
exchange to make us quit our ancient practices ? Consider 
the people who boast themselves to be of the evangelical pro- 
fession, and observe whether there be not as much luxury, as 
much debauchery and avarice, amongst them, as amongst 
those they hate. Show me one, whom your new gospel has 
changed from a drunkard to a sober man ; or one who, 
having before been either quarrelsome, or revengeful, or cov- 
etous, or given to detraction or impurity, is become meek, 



266 

liberal, affable, or chaste. You will say there is always a 
mixture of good and bad in human things, and I ought to 
consider the good men that are amongst those of the evan- 
gelical profession. I must therefore be very unlucky ; for 
hitherto I have not met with one that is not become worse 
than he was before he embraced the new gospel." Thus 
speaks Erasmus, who was no violent or prejudiced man. 

But let us hear Luther himself set forth the fruits of his 
reformation. " We see," says he, " that, by the devil's malice, 
men are at present more covetous, more cruel, more addicted 
to vice, more insolent, and far worse than they were under 
the Papacy," (Ser. in Dom. 1, adv. edit. Arnent., fol. 5;) and 
Robenstock, in his book entitled Colloquia D. Lutheri, (torn. 
1, p. 37,) recites his words as follows : " Men are become so 
extravagant by the gospel we have preached to them, that they 
think every thing lawful that flatters their passions, and have 
lost all fear of hell fire. There is but one peasant in the district 
of Wittemberg, who endeavors to instruct his family accord- 
ing to the word of God. All the rest go straight to the devil." 

Jacobus Andreas, a German " reformer" of the 16th century, 
in a sermon upon the 21st chap, of St. Luke, makes the same 
bitter complaint of the scandalous lives of their converts from 
Popery. " To make it plain (says he) to all the icorld that 
they are not Papists, and place no confidence in good works, 
they take care to practise none. Instead of fasting, they 
spend their time in sotting and drinkings. When they ought 
to relieve the poor, they fieece and oppress them. Oaths, blas- 
phemies, and imprecations, are their usual prayers ; so that 
Jesus Christ is not so blasphemed among the Turks as he is 
among them. In a word, instead of humility, nothing reigns 
among them but haughtiness, arrogance, and pride ; and this 
sort of life is called cvangelical. ,, 

Andreas Musculus, another reformer of the same age and 
country, in a sermon upon the fourth Sunday of advent, de- 
scribes the disorders reigning amongst those of his party in 
the same pathetic manner. " As to us Lutherans, (says he,) 
the matter stands thus : If any one has a mind to see a set 



267 

of tricked men, drunkards, libertines, liars, cheats, and usurers, 
let him go to a town where the gospel is preached in its purity, 
and he will see, as clearly as the sun may be seen at noonday, 
that there is not so much insolence and icickedness practised 
among Turks and infidels as amongst evangelical people, 
where all the reins of the devil are let loose." 

Let us now turn from this edifying picture of the " re- 
formed" (?) sects in Germany, as drawn by their own artists, 
to that of England, painted by Richard Jeffrey, who, having 
ascertained the true character of the reformed saints in his 
travels for that purpose, made a public show of them in his 
sermon at the Cross, on the Tth of October, 1604, in the fol- 
lowing words: u I may freely speak (saith he) what I have 
plainly seen in the course of some travailes, and observations of 
some courses ; that in Flanders was never more drunkenness, 
in Italy never more wantonness, in Jury (Judea) more hypoc- 
ricy, in Turkie more impiety, in Tartary more iniquity , than 
is practiced generally in England : particularly in Lon- 
don is this to be seen," &,c. Dr. King, bishop of London in 
1612, writing on the book of Jonas, page 442, lecture 32, 
speaks as follows : " So far is it off (saith he) that we are 
become (by the Protestant reformation) true Israelites with 
Nathaniel, or almost Christians with Agrippa, that we are 
proved fully Atheists, and that which Tully report eth 
amongst his wonders in nature, that in one country drought 
causeth dirt, and rain stirrcth up dust, may be truly applied 
to us, that abundance of grace hath brought forth in us 
abundance of sinne ; and some tooke occasion by the law to 
waxe more sinfull ; so iniquity hath never been so ryfe amongst 
us, but throug the rifeness of the Ghospell." Does the gospel 
of Christ produce such effects as these? Or can a system be 
of divine appointment which produces such gross demoraliza- 
tion as is here reluctantly admitted by its own advocates ? 

Lastly, Calvin himself comes in for a witness of this truth, 
that the (so called) reformation was in reality a deformation of 
every thing worthy of the Christian name. " Of the few 
(says he) that have separated themselves from the tyranny of 



268 

the pope, the greatest part are rotten at heart. They appear 
outwardly to be full of zeal ; but if you search them to the 
bottom, you will find them full of hypocrisy and deceit" In 
Dan. c. 11, v. 34. And amongst Calvin's letters, there is one 
written to Farel, by Capiton, a minister of Strasburg, where 
he says that God had rendered them sensible how much they 
had prejudiced souls by their precipitation in throwing off 
the pope's authority. " The multitude (says he) has entirely 
shaken off the yoke, being trained up to libertinism ; as if, 
by pulling down the pope's authority, we intended to destroy the 
word of God, the sacraments, and the whole ministry. They 
even have the impudence to tell us, ' I am sufficiently instructed 
in Scriptures ; I can read, and stand in no need of your di- 
rection.' " 

Thus God confounded the enemies of the Catholic Church, 
by turning against them the principal argument they had 
made use of to render her odious to the people, to wit, the 
scandals, abuses, and irregularities committed by some cor- 
rupt members of that Church, but always detested and op- 
posed both by her public doctrine, and by all her sound and 
uncorrupted part, who made that doctrine the rule of their 
practice. Nay, the argument is retorted upon them with much 
greater force than could ever be objected against the Church 
of Rome ; because it is no wonder that corruption in man- 
ners, abuses in practice, and relaxation in discipline, should, in 
the course of many ages, get into the Church, notwithstanding 
the holiness of her doctrine, and severity of innumerable 
canons made to prevent them. For we need not seek for any 
other source of this evil than the general corruption of human 
nature, always inclined to liberty and ease, and always tend- 
ing to it, whatever restraints are laid upon it. But I defy 
the blackest malice to attribute it to any principle or branch 
of doctrine authorized or acknowledged by the Church of 
Rome. Whereas the general inundation of libertinism and 
vice, (as it is attested by the fore-mentioned authors, who saw 
it with their own eyes,) in the very infancy of the most solemn 
reformation that ever was pretended to be made in God's 






269 

Church, cannot possibly be ascribed to any other cause than 
the pernicious doctrines of the authors of it; for in reality 
those very doctrines paved the way directly to it. 

As for example, what other fruit than an utter contempt 
of religion could be expected from a reformation established 
upon the ruins of broken vows, cemented by rapine, sacrilege, 
and plunder ? Was not the impious doctrine of making God 
the author of sin, denying the liberty of man's will, and 
teaching " the impossibility of keeping the commandments," — 
was it not, I say, sapping the very foundations of all Christian 
morality, and giving men a general license to be as wicked as 
they pleased? For men cannot be obliged to impossibilities; 
and when they are once persuaded that they cannot be virtu- 
ous, what can we hope better than to see them most impu- 
dently wicked ? Again, abolishing the ancient holidays and 
fusts, and reforming away the sacrament of penance, could 
have no other effect than the introducing of libertinism, and 
a general decay of piety and devotion. 

I shall end with some reflections upon Capiton's complaint 
of the people's insolence towards their ministers. For if he 
had but traced this evil to its true source, it might have 
opened his eyes to let him see that the mischief he complains 
so bitterly of was but the natural fruit of a tree of their own 
planting. The first reformers had set up the standard of 
rebellion against their mother Church, and behaved them- 
selves with the utmost insolence towards their lawful superi- 
ors. And could they, after that, have the weakness to imagine 
the people would be more submissive and respectful to their 
upstart guides, than they themselves had been to the guides 
of God's own appointment, as Mr. Lesly justly styles them ? 
Nay, they had not only set them the example, but taught them 
their lesson of rebellion against the Church, by settling it, as 
a fundamental principle of the reformation, that " Scriptures 
interpreted by the private spirit are the only rule of faith; " 
which in effect was making every body a judge of the faith, 
and putting the people upon the level with their guides in 
spiritual matters. What wonder is it, then, they should pretend 
23* 



270 

to control them, or even claim a right to reform their reform- 
ers 1 according to this celebrated saying of Tertullian, 
" What was lawful to Marcion was likewise to the Marcion- 
ites ; * for in like manner what was lawful to Luther, Cal- 
vin, Zuinglius, &.c, was no less lawful to their disciples or 
any other whatsoever, " to follow their private judgment in 
changing the faith." 

It was thus the reformation became at length a mere Pro- 
teus, and changed its shape as often as a stage-player changes 
his dress. Luther began the farce, and expected all should 
at best be but actors under him, and dance to his pipe. But 
Carolostadius, Zuinglius, and Calvin, took themselves to be as 
able reformers as Luther, and so thought fit to reform his 
reformation ; nay, they all reformed their own reformations, 
backward or forward, just as the fancy took them. The 
Church of England reformed not only her own mother 
Church, but all the reformations that had got the start of her, 
and a new scene of reformation appeared in Great Britain as 
often as new reformers mounted the stage. The reformation 
of Henry VIII. was reformed by Edward VI., and his by 
Queen Elizabeth, whose superior genius not being fully satis- 
fied with what had been done before her, by the force of 
her own ingenuity fabricated a new religion of a kind of 
linsey-woolsey texture, made up of several fragments of Lu- 
theranism and Calvinism, and some pieces of Popery to make 
a show with ; for which reason the Presbyterians thought 
themselves bound in conscience to reform the reformation of 
Queen Elizabeth. The fanatics and Independents, after that, 
reformed the Presbyterians ; and the Brownists and Quakers 
have reformed them all. 

Here we see a complete Babel of jarring reformations, 
chopping and changing, building and destroying, doing and 
undoing ; and all these changes, incoherencies, and contra- 
dictions, flowing from a principle settled by the first reform- 

* Idem licuit Valentinianis quod Valentino, idem Marcionitis quod 
Marcioni de arbitrio suo fidem innovare. Lib. de Prffiscrip. c. 42. 



271 

ers, and still maintained by the reformed churches, as is 
manifest from Mr. Lesly's Case Stated, p. 46, where he has 
these remarkable words : " Private judgment is all we have 
for the belief of God and of Christ ; in short, we must 
trust to it in every thing without exception." Nay, the doc- 
trine of private judgment, in opposition to church authority, 
is so esentially necessary to support the whole building of 
the reformation, that whoever gives it up must at the same 
time give up the reformation itself. Now, I ask whether a 
principle which is an inexhaustible source of confusion, in- 
coherences, heresies, and schisms, can be a doctrine accord- 
ing to the word of God. If it be, we must join issue with 
Calvin's blasphemy in teaching that God is the author of sin. 
But I have now said enough to make it plain that the two 
first marks of an extraordinary vocation, to wit, holiness of 
life and purity of doctrine, were wholly wanting in the first 
reformers. Let us now see what is to be said concerning 
the third mark, viz., the gift of miracles. 



ARTICLE IV. 

No extraordinary Vocation ivithout the Gift of 

Miracles. 

If the first reformers had a commission immediately from 
God to reform the public faith and discipline of the Church, 
it follows that they were vested with a power and jurisdiction, 
not only of larger extent than the ancient prophets ever had, 
but even fully equal to that of the apostles themselves. For, 

1st. It made them the source of a new ecclesiastical 
ministry ; because the former, which Christ had established, 
remained no longer in force, as they pretended. 

2dly. It gave them a power to establish articles of faith 
unknown for such to the whole world; to revoke the de- 
crees of ancient councils, declare such doctrines orthodox 



272 

as had been condemned by the universal Church in former 
ages, pull down the ancient form of church government, and 
set up a new one in its place. 

3dly. It gave them a jurisdiction over the whole Christian 
world, and full authority to plant their new gospel wherever 
Christianity was professed ; because an extraordinary com- 
mission to reform the faith and discipline of the Church 
regards one nation no less than another. 

4thly. It gave them a power to suspend, depose, and ex- 
communicate the whole body of bishops and pastors upon 
earth, if they refused to submit to their new gospel. Nay, 
if their commission was really from God, all bishops deposed 
and excommunicated by them were bound to regard them- 
selves as validly deposed and excommunicated, and have 
recourse to their authority to be reestablished in the exercise 
cf their functions, even though they should have afterwards 
embraced the reformation. 

Lastly. If they really had a commission immediately 
from God to reform both the faith and discipline of the 
Church, as soon as they had manifested themselves to the 
world, and published their reformation, all Christians upon 
earth, that is, the whole Greek and Latin church, Armenians, 
Jacobites, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c, were bound to re- 
nounce their former pastors, and submit to the new ministry 
established by them. 

This was the real extent of the extraordinary commission 
pretended to by the first reformers; and it is manifest their 
pretension was at least as mad and extravagant in appear- 
ance, as that in another kind would be of a man who should 
issue forth a proclamation that God had constituted him uni- 
versal monarch of the world, with full power to depose all 
emperors, kings, and princes, that should refuse to own his 
title. Now, what judgment would the world make of a man 
laying claim to such a universal monarchy as bestowed im- 
mediately by God ? Would any thing less be demanded of 
him than clear and uncontested miracles to prove his title, 
since without that proof it could not be made manifest either 



273 

to sense or reason ? And if lie should refuse to yield to so 
reasonable a demand, would he not be treated either as a 
madman or as a cheat and impostor 1 It cannot be ques- 
tioned but he would ; and it follows from it, that, unless the 
first reformers had the gift of miracles bestowed upon them, 
we must form the same judgment of them ; because their 
claiming an immediate commission from God to reform both 
the faith and discipline of the Church, — that is, to degrade 
all her former bishops and pastors, reverse the decrees of her 
ancient councils, abolish her most solemn devotions, and 
make themselves the source of a new ministry and succes- 
sion, — was, at least in all appearance, an extravagance equal 
to the imaginary one I have mentioned, and by consequence 
wholly unjustifiable without the testimony of miracles to 
support it. 

The reason hereof is clear; because, in the case of such 
an extraordinary pretension as that of an immediate mission 
from God, no man can expect to be believed without extra- 
ordinary proofs, much less upon his own bare word, by 
reason of the important consequence of it, which is either 
the salvation or damnation of millions of souls. For the 
pretenders to such a mission are either seducers or not : if 
they be, the people are bound to shun them ; if not, they 
are bound to listen to their voice, because there is certainly 
an indispensable obligation of obeying persons raised by God 
in an extraordinary manner. For as he gives such persons 
an unquestionable authority to govern the people, so he lays, 
by consequence, an obligation on the people to submit to 
their government, the one being wholly inseparable from the 
other. The people must, therefore, have some rational grounds 
to judge by, that the pretenders to such an authority are 
really vested with it; because it is impossible they should 
comply with the duty of obedience without knowing the 
person they are bound to obey. And how can this be known 
in the case of an extraordinary vocation, which of itself is 
not manifest either to man's sense or reason, unless the pre- 
tenders to it prove their immediate commission from God by 



274 

showing his seal to it from the visible testimony of signs and 
wonders, as the apostles did, arid even Christ himself, who 
declares in the gospel, that " if he had not done among the 
Jews the works which no man ever did, they had not had sin," 
(John, c. 15, v. 24;) which amounts to a positive declaration 
that miracles are a necessary proof of an extraordinary vo- 
cation. 

This was most certainly the judgment of the ancient 
fathers, who objected the want of miracles as a conclusive 
argument against the teachers of new doctrines. Has Nova- 
tain (says St. Pacian) the gift of tongues or of prophecy 1 
Has he restored life to the dead 1 For without some of these 
miraculous gifts he cannot claim a right to establish a new 
gospel. For the same reason Tertullian, requiring of Her- 
mogenes and Nigidius an account of the authority they took, 
demanded at the same time miracles for a proof of their mis- 
sion. Volo et virtutes eorum proferri. Because, (says he,) 
when Christ sent his apostles to preach, he gave the power of 
working the same miracles himself had wrought. Lib. de 
Praescript. c. 30. And the same Tertullian observes that no 
man coming as sent, or under the authority of another, ever 
pretended to be believed upon his own bare word — Nemo 
verticils ex altcrius authoritate ipse earn sibi ex sua affirmati- 
one defendit. 

Luther, therefore, may tell us, as often as he pleases, " that 
he had his doctrine from heaven, and received his ministry 
not of men, nor by men, but by the gift of God and revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ." Calvin may likewise tell us, if he 
pleases, " that the commission our Savior gave him and his 
fellow-reformers was wholly extraordinary, and not to be 
examined by the common rules." Theodorus Beza may 
bluster and swagger against the ordinary mission, and their 
synods and confessions of faith may stand up for the extraordi- 
nary vocation of their first reformers ; but unless they show 
miracles to prove it, no man in his senses will believe them. 

It will perhaps be asked, whether the gift of miracles be a 
sure mark of an extraordinary vocation, as well as a necessary 



275 

proof of it. I answer, it is not. Nay, on the contrary, alJ 
the holy bishops and pastors, who, since the time of the 
apostles, have confirmed the truth of the faith they preached 
by uncontested miracles, never had any other than what we 
call an ordinary mission, — that is, a mission received from 
the lawful successors of the apostles, — so that there is not an 
example, since their time, allowed of by the Catholic Church, 
of any one person sent immediately by God to " preach the 
word and administer the sacraments." For that must of ne- 
cessity have made a breach in the apostolical succession of 
the sacred ministry, contrary to the doctrine of all antiquity, as 
well as to the promises of Christ, that it should be continued 
in the Church to the end of the world. 

But do net we ourselves cry up many persons as "raised 
by God in an extraordinary manner," such as St. Benedict, 
St. Bernard, and other founders of religious orders ? I an- 
swer, that, if the meaning of it be that God, by a superabun- 
dant effusion of his holy grace, has been pleased, from time to 
time, to render these and many other such persons proper 
instruments of his mercies for the conversion of sinners, and 
to repair the gradual decays of Christian morality, (which is 
a reformation the Church continually prays and labors for,) 
nothing is more certain than that God many times raises men 
in this manner for the service and edification of his Church. 
But did any of these persons separate themselves from the 
communion of their mother Church 1 Did any of them set 
up altar against altar, church against church, or rebel against 
their lawful superiors under pretence of an extraordinary vo- 
cation to the ministry? On the contrary, they did every 
thing according to the canons of the Church, and their mis- 
sion was conveyed to them by the ordinary channel. Nay, 
they were the very patterns of humility, submission, and 
obedience to superior powers, and never made a step but as 
directed by them : much less had they the presumption to 
think themselves wiser than the Catholic Church, or assume 
an authority to reform her faith, which, according to Tertul- 
lian, is wholly irreformable. " Regula fidei una omnino est , 



276 

sola immobilis et irreformabilis" (c. 1, de Virgin. Velandis;) 
because Christ has promised to his Church the spirit of truth 
for her guide, (John, c. 16, v. 13,) and " to abide with her to 
the end of the world." Matt. c. 28, v. 19. So that the 
reformation these holy men undertook regarded wholly the 
correction of manners. It was not their business to preach a 
new faith, but to exhort the people to live up to the sacred 
maxims of the faith they had received from their forefathers ; 
and there is not a Christian in the world but is bound to 
contribute to this sort of reformation, if not by preaching, at 
least by practice and example ; so that if Luther, Calvin, 
Zuinglius, and Archbishop Cranmer had labored for a refor- 
mation of this kind, and proceeded in it according to rule 
and order, the whole world would have admired their zeal ; 
nor would any of them have stood in need of an extraordi- 
nary mission, but only of a greater stock of humility, morti- 
fication, obedience, and other virtues, to qualify them for it; 
and God, who can work miracles by what instruments he 
pleases, might perhaps have bestowed that blessing on them, 
as he has done on many others, laborers in his holy vineyard. 
Whereas these proud pretenders to an extraordinary vocation 
were so far from being endowed with the gift of miracles, 
that Erasmus was wont to reproach them that not one 
amongst them could even so much as cure a lame horse, 
much less give sight to the blind, health to the sick, or life to 
the dead. 

But was not the sudden and stupendous progress of the 
reformation a kind of miracle, and sure mark of the divine 
approbation of it? I answer, 1st, in Mr. Dryden's pithy ex- 
pression, that " a downhill reformation rolls on very fast." 
I answer, 2dly, that success is the most equivocal mark that 
possibly can be of the divine approbation of any undertaking. 
For if it were a solid proof of it, every successful and pros- 
perous wickedness would have the divine approbation to 
justify it. The famous rebellion in '42 was prosperous in 
all its undertakings; yet I hope no good subject will say 
that God approved it. The progress of Mahometanism is 



277 

without example ; and will any Christian say it is a religion 
approved by God ? Again, the progress of Arianism was so 
prodigious, that there were sometimes assemblies of above 
three hundred Arian bishops at once. It was supported by 
Christian emperors and kings ; the most zealous champions 
of the Catholic faith were either murdered, or imprisoned, or 
sent into banishment. In a word, the Christian world was 
astonished at the general inundation of it. And yet I never 
heard any Christian call this a miraculous event, or insist 
upon it as a mark of God's approbation of it. 

Yet there is a peculiar circumstance, which renders this 
progress of Arianism still more astonishing ; to wit, that it 
was a mere speculative heresy, and no ways flattering men's 
passions or proneness to libertinism. For it neither dis- 
pensed with fasting, nor religious vows, nor confession of sins, 
nor doing penance for them, but kept up all the rigor of ec- 
clesiastical discipline ; whereas the reformation had the most 
powerful attractives to draw into its interest all persons of a 
worldly, sensual, and carnal disposition, of which there are 
always great numbers in the Church. Princes, and other 
men of figure, were charmed with the alluring prospect of 
enriching themselves with the plunder of the Church's patri- 
mony. Priests, friars, monks, and nuns, were prevailed upon 
by the temptation of exchanging their confinement, austeri- 
ties, and breviaries, for the worldly pleasures of liberty and 
ease, and the more agreeable company of wives and hus- 
bands ; and the common people could not but be very well 
content to be rid of so many troublesome facts, and the im- 
portune exhortations and reprimands of their confessors ; 
so that the great and sudden progress of a reformation, so 
agreeable to all the inclinations of corrupt nature, and where- 
in all sorts of passions found their account, is so far from 
having the appearance of a miracle, that we may rather call it 
a miracle of God's grace that it stopped where it did, and 
look upon the preservation of his Church from such a power- 
ful and dangerous contagion as a most remarkable instance 
24 



278 

of the indefeasibleness of his promise, " that the gates of hell 
shall never prevail against her." 

I conclude, from what has been said, that Luther and Cal- 
vin, the two principal reformers, were two rank cheats and 
impostors ; because whoever sets up for an inspired man, 
and pretends to an extraordinary commission from God 
to reform his church, deserves no better name, if he cannot 
make good his title, and is even convicted of falsehood. 

Those of the Church of England will say., What have we 
to do with Luther and Calvin 1 For we are neither Luther- 
ans nor Calvinists, but have a reformed church of our own, 
which, by its worthy members, is justly called the best church 
in the world. I confess I have often been surprised at this 
expression ; because the Nicene creed, allowed of by that 
church, tells us there is but one, holy, catholic, and apos- 
tolic church. St. Paul says, likewise, that there is but one 
faith; and to be sure the creed speaks of the true Church, 
and St. Paul of the true faith, and by consequence but one 
true religion. This being so, I cannot well conceive how 
either the Church of England, or any other, should be the 
best church in the world. For that implies a comparison, 
and supposes that there are several very good churches, faiths, 
and religions, in the world, but, like trades, houses, or fami- 
lies, some better than others — a strange absurdity ! con- 
trary to Scripture, and unknown to all antiquity, which never 
admitted but of one Church and communion of all the faithful 
throughout the whole world, united in the profession of one 
and the same true faith. 

But let that be as it will. If the Church of England be 
the best church in the world, one necessary condition, to 
make her so, is to profess the best faith in the world. Now, 
then, I desire some worthy member of that church to answer 
me this short question, to wit, whether Luther and Calvin 
were cheats or not. If he denies it, he must give himself 
the trouble to confute both this and the two preceding 
articles, which I conceive will be a hard task to perform ; 



279 

beeause in the second article he will find it fully proved, both 
from their own words and other authentic testimonies, that 
they effectually set up for inspired men, and challenged to 
themselves an immediate commission from God. And he 
will find it demonstrated, in this and the preceding article, 
that they were wholly destitute of all the marks of such a 
mission ; nay, over and above, that some of their doctrines 
were so exorbitantly scandalous, that it would be blasphemy 
to attribute them to any other than the father of lies. 

But if the advocates for the Church of England be con- 
vinced by the force of these arguments (as I hope every rea- 
sonable man will be) that Luther and Calvin were rank 
impostors, then they do not act rationally, unless they have 
an entire diffidence of all the changes they made both in the 
public faith and discipline of the Church, and suspect the 
new doctrines they broached to have been the fruit, not of a 
sincere conviction of judgment, but either of their violent 
hatred to the pope and their mother Church, or of some 
other criminal passion ; for it is certain there is no sort of 
wickedness which an avowed impostor is not capable of. 
But ought not those, then, of the Church of England at the 
same time to suspect the truth of all the doctrines they have 
espoused after the examples of such notorious seducers? 
Would they think it safe to drink the waters of a poisoned 
source, or eat a fruit growing from a poisonous root ? No, 
surely. They ought, therefore, to have at least a diffidence 
of, and suspect, all the doctrines wherein they differ from the 
Church of Rome, because they all flowed from a poisonous 
source. Two rank impostors were the primary authors of 
them, in opposition to the whole visible Church then upon 
earth ; and this alone is sufficient for any rational man to 
reject them. Neither will it any ways avail the advocates of 
the Church of England to say they are neither Lutherans nor 
Calvinists ; for it is not the name, but doctrine, that makes 
men disciples of this or that sect; and they will, in spite of 
their hearts, be the true disciples of two notorious seducers, 
as long as they sympathize with them in all the doctrines 



280 

wherein they differ from the mother Church, though they 
follow them not in those that are grossly scandalous. I shall 
now proceed to prove that the first reformers had not even an 
ordinary mission. 



ARTICLE V. 

The first Reformers had no ordinary Mission* 

It appears manifestly, from what has been said, and even 
from plain fact, that the first reformers took upon them to 
change the whole face of religion, both as to faith, govern- 
ment, and discipline. The pope was stripped of all his 
authority, both as patriarch of the west and head of the Cath- 
olic Church. The real presence of the sacred body and 
blood of Christ in the blessed sacrament, believed by the 
whole Christian world, both east and west, was transformed 
into a mere figurative presence. The holy sacrifice of the 
mass, offered from east to west, according to the prophecy of 
Malachy, was rendered execrable and odious as much as in 
them lay. The invocation of saints, and the relative honor 
paid to their pictures, images, and relics, though practised 
by all the most eminent lights and saints of antiquity, were 
run down for rank idolatry. The sacraments instituted by 
Christ were reduced from seven to two. The solemn cere- 
monies of baptism, more ancient than the first Nicene coun- 
cil, were abolished. The rule of faith, which till then was 
the word of God delivered to us either in the canonical 
books or by apostolical tradition, was changed into that of 
Scriptures interpreted by the private spirit. In a word, the 
solemn fasts of Lent, Ember-days, and Vigils, religious vows, 
confession, and doing penance for our sins, were utterly re- 
formed away. 

I confess, when I barely consider the extraordinary nature 
of such an undertaking, and the prodigious extent and con- 



281 

sequences of it, I cannot wonder the first reformers should 
form a judgment that nothing but an extraordinary commis- 
sion from God could justify it in any manner, how extrava- 
gant soever their pretension to it was. For what powei 
upon earth could give a commission to any set of men to 
subvert in this manner a religion which had at that time the 
prescription of near upon fifteen hundred years, as shall be 
proved hereafter 1 The thing is wholly inconceivable in 
itself, unless we can imagine, with any color of reason, that 
the whole Church of Christ had been utterly blind, void of 
all piety and zeal, and under a continual dotage for so many 
ages together, and was cured all on a sudden of this blind- 
ness, lethargy, and dotage, by the voice of these powerful 
charmers, so as to give them a carte blanche to act just as 
they pleased. 

It is certain, however, that both Luther, Calvin, Theodorus 
Beza, and others, were of opinion that nothing less than an 
extraordinary vocation could serve their turn ; and this shows 
manifestly that they knew nothing of the ordinary one, 
which their ingenious successors have since invented for 
them ; which I think is a good proof that they had no ordi- 
nary mission ; because it is but congruous to common sense 
to judge that if they had had it, they would have known it, 
and accordingly insisted upon it. 

Let us, then, examine the reasons why they judged them- 
selves safest under the shelter of an extraordinary mission. 
The first was, because they had separated themselves from 
the communion of the whole Christian world ; so that there 
was not a visible society of Christians upon earth into which 
they could incorporate themselves, as will appear more fully 
hereafter. From what source, then, or through what channel, 
could the ordinary mission be conveyed to them ? Can 
waters have their ordinary course when the pipes and con- 
duits, through which they used to pass, are stopped or 
broken ? In reality, they might as well have looked for an 
ordinary mission from the world in the moon, as from any 
Christian society upon earth. 
24* 



282 

Another strong reason against the ordinary mission of the 
first reformers, which they could not but be sensible of, was 
because it appears manifestly from the practice of all an- 
tiquity, that there never was any ordinary mission acknowl- 
edged by God's Church, but was derived by an uninterrupted 
succession from the apostles, and conveyed down from age to 
age, and from person to person, by the bishops, who were 
their undoubted successors. And this truth is supported by 
such a constant and universal tradition, (as has been shown 
in the first article,) that no man of any sincerity can doubt 
but it has its source from the apostles themselves. Now, all the 
bishops, at least of the western churches, were true sons of 
the Roman Catholic Church, and zealous defenders of her 
faith, when Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, &,c, first set up for 
reformers. And can it enter into the imagination of any 
man of common sense, that either any of these bishops 
would, or that the fore-mentioned reformers thought they 
would, give them a commission not only to subvert the whole 
frame of ecclesiastical government established by that Church, 
but even to set up new churches, faiths, and religions, in 
opposition to her ? Truly, it may as easily be believed that a 
king shall give a commission to a band of ruffians to come 
and cut his throat. 

Here, then, I shall ask them, in Tertullian's words, Qui estis 
vos ? Quando et unde venistis 1 Who were these reformers ? 
Whence did they come ? Who gave them a commission to 
pull down their mother Church, and turn her faith and dis- 
cipline out of doors? Were they the people, or secular 
princes, who gave them this authority? Alas ! how can the 
laity, who have no ecclesiastical power or jurisdiction them- 
selves, give it to others? Nay, they may as well pretend to 
give them the power to fly, or to give health to the sick, 
sight to the blind, and life to the dead. Or did they receive 
it from the Greek church, or from any of the other churches of 
the east ? All these were utter strangers to them in the begin- 
ning of the reformation, and, since they have been informed 
of their proceedings, have disowned them as a spurious race, 



233 

and openly declared against their doctrines ; as is demon- 
strated from incontestable records in Mr. Arnauld's Pcrpe- 
tuite de la Foi, to the everlasting confusion of the French 
Hugonot ministers, who were so indiscreet as to provoke 
him to it. 

Lastly. Will they pretend to have received their power and 
jurisdiction from the Church of Rome 1 If so, I must repeat 
in short what I have said just now, viz., that no man in his 
senses will believe the Church of Rome ever gave a com- 
mission to any man to destroy herself; so that the con- 
sequence of all is, that they had their commission from 
their own dear selves, as thieves and robbers have who plun- 
der and murder upon the highway, according to our Savior's 
character of false guides. John, c. 10, v. 10. 

But I must here observe, over and above, that the advo- 
cates for the ordinary Protestant mission from the Church of 
Rome do hereby fairly acknowledge her authority to give a 
lawful mission ; the immediate consequence whereof is, 
that they must likewise acknowledge her to have been the 
true Church of Christ at the very time when they formed 
their schism against her ; because a false church cannot give 
a lawful mission to preach the word and administer the 
sacraments ; and so, by another undeniable consequence, they 
apostatized from the true Church of Christ, acknowledged 
for such by themselves. 

It follows, again, that, as they are bound to acknowledge 
her authority to give a lawful mission, so they must likewise 
own she had a power to suspend, interdict, and excommuni- 
cate such members as set up the standard of rebellion against 
her ; for the one is wholly inseparable from the other. 
But this spoils all, and utterly destroys the pretended ordi- 
nary mission of the reformed churches from the Church 
of Rome; because the first authors of the reformation 
were effectually excommunicated by her; and persons ex- 
communicated have neither themselves the power of exer- 
cising their ministry, nor by consequence of conveying it to 



284 

others; for no man can give that power to others which he 
has not himself. 

This will fully answer the question chiefly insisted upon 
by those who justly stand up for the divine institution of 
episcopacy, viz., whether those amongst the reformers,, who 
had been validly ordained by the Church of Rome, had not a 
power, by virtue of their ordination, to preach the word and 
administer the sacraments. For I answer, 1st, that excom- 
munication deprived them of all power of exercising their 
respective functions. I answer, 2dly, that their power of 
preaching the word could go no farther than as it had a con- 
formity to the doctrine of the Church that gave them their 
orders. For I take it to be a certain truth that they had no 
power given them to cut the throat of their own Church ; as 
Dr. Whiston and others ordained by the Church of Eng- 
land had no power, by virtue of their ordination, to teach 
doctrines condemned by that church ; and as the Arian and 
Donatist bishops, who had been validly ordained by the Cath- 
olic Church, had no power, by virtue of their ordination, to 
preach their impious doctrines. Nay, we may as well main- 
tain that the commander of a party, who has a commission 
to attack the enemy wherever he meets them, has a power 
given him to burn, pillage, and destroy both friends and foes ; 
which is most highly ridiculous, because exceeding a com- 
mission is as unwarrantable as acting contrary to it. 

But has not every pastor a power, nay, obligation, to reform 
errors and abuses crept into the church ? I answer, that, if 
we may depend securely upon the promises of Christ, the 
Catholic Church will never be guilty of any errors against 
faith, and therefore will never stand in need of being re- 
formed by any of her pastors. So that my direct answer to 
the question is, that it implies no less a false supposition than 
if it should be asked whether any pastor has not a power, nay, 
obligation, to reform errors taught by the apostles. 

But as to abuses in practice, every pastor is bound to do 
his best to reform them, provided they be real ones. But he 



285 

ought to be very well assured that they are so, before he 
undertakes to correct them ; for, if every private pastor had 
an authority to reform merely supposed or imaginary abuses, 
endless divisions and schisms would be the unavoidable con- 
sequence of it. In effect, this was the sole occasion of the 
ancient schisms of the Donatists and Novatians, and that of 
the Anabaptists in our latter days. The Donatists pretended 
that the allowing of the validity of baptism conferred by 
heretics was an abuse ; the Novatians cried out against the 
pretended abuse of admitting those to penance who had 
fallen in the persecutions ; and the Anabaptists clamor with 
the same violence against infant baptism, as an abuse against 
the plain word of God. But because the Catholic Church 
never regarded these practices as abuses, but, on the contrary, 
as a discipline supported by apostolical tradition, it was un- 
lawful for any of her pastors to take upon them a power to 
reform them of their own heads. 

Suppose a bishop or parson of the Church of England 
should of his own head undertake to abolish the sign of the 
cross in the administration of baptism, the ceremonies of 
ordination, of blessing churches, and other such practices 
still retained in their church, under pretence of reforming 
abuses as smelling too rank of Popery, — I ask whether that 
plea would be admitted. I rather believe such a pretended 
reformer would be very warmly opposed by his fellow-bishops 
or parsons, who in this case would be clear-sighted enough 
to perceive a difference between real and imaginary abuses ; 
and I heartily wish it may open their eyes to let them see 
that the fiery zeal of the first reformers against every thing 
they were pleased to call abuses, (as monastical vows, the 
celibacy of priests, the invocation of saints, honoring their 
relics, images, or pictures, and praying for the souls de- 
parted,) was not a zeal according to knowledge, but a cloak 
to cover the irregularity of their unwarrantable and uncanon- 
ical proceedings. 

But I shall now proceed to another sort of argument, to 
prove that the first reformers, whether ordained or not ordained 



286 

by the Church of Rome, could not possibly have a lawful 
mission from her ; and this I shall prove from their own writ- 
ings, as likewise from the writings of the true sons of the 
Episcopal Church of England, who have thereby given a 
mortal stab to their own church. 



ARTICLE VI. 

Protestants convicted, from their own Writings, that they 
have no lawful Mission from the Church of Rome. 

The principle I go upon is this, viz., that an heretical, 
idolatrous, and antichristian church has no power or authority 
to preach the word or administer the sacraments; because 
this power belongs wholly and solely to the true Church of 
Christ; and an heretical, idolatrous, and antichristian church 
cannot be the true church of Christ. If, then, it wilt appear 
that the Church of Rome has been constantly represented as 
an heretical, idolatrous, and antichristian Church, both by 
the first reformers and their successors, it will plainly follow 
from their own doctrine and writings that none of the re- 
formed churches can possibly have a lawful mission from her, 
because she has no lawful ministry herself, if she be the 
monster described in those noble epithets. 

First, then, let us see how the Church of Rome was set forth 
by the first reformers. Luther declares, indeed, in his book 
De abroganda Missa, that he had at first no small difficulty to 
work himself into a belief that the pope was Antichrist, his 
bishops the devil's apostles, and the Catholic universities his 
stews. But with the help of some powerful medicines, as he 
speaks himself, this hard morsel went down at last; and 
after that the pope was the very Antichrist foretold in the 
Revelations, the Church of Rome was the scarlet whore, her 
synods the synagogues of Satan, and her bishops the devil's 
apostles. Nay, in a book he wrote against the pope's bull, 



287 

instead of calling him pope or bishop of Rome, he styles him 
Antichrist, in the very title prefixed to it, thus — "Against 
the execrable Bull of Antichrist ; " which shows that among 
the Lutherans he was very well known by that name. 

Calvin maintained, in express terms, that the bishops of the 
Church of Rome were not true pastors, but the most cruel 
butchers of souls, (Instit. I. 4, c. 10;) and in the same treatise, 
(1. c. 2, § 2,) he tells his reader that " in the Church of Rome, 
instead of the Lord's supper, a horrible sacrilege is substi- 
tuted in its place ; that the worship of God is entirely dis- 
figured by a heap of superstitions ; that the essential doc- 
trine of Christianity, without which it cannot subsist, is 
either buried or utterly destroyed ; that her public assem- 
blies are schools of idolatry and impiety ; and that no man 
ought to be afraid of separating himself from the Church by 
avoiding to be an accomplice in her crimes." In his letter to 
the king of Poland, he declares positively that her ministry 
was interrupted ; and in his Method of reforming the Church, 
that she was fallen into utter ruin. 

Theodorus Beza, his faithful disciple, told the cardinal of 
Lorain that they had renounced the Papistical ordinations as 
the mark of the beast ; as he likewise told Saravias that 
" they were no better than an infamous commerce with the 
Romish harlot, and more polluted than the pay of prostitutes, 
forbid by God to be offered in the temple." 

The 31st article of their profession of faith declares that 
" the Church was fallen into utter ruins and desolation." 
And the 28th article condemns all Popish assemblies, " be- 
cause the pure word of God was banished out of them, and 
the holy sacraments were corrupted, bastardized, falsified, or 
rather entirely annihilated ; that all idolatry and supersti- 
tion was practised in them, and that whoever followed their 
practices, or communicated with them, cut himself off from 
the mystical body of Jesus Christ." 

From these principles they argued very consequently, and 
inferred that they could not possibly receive a lawful mission 



288 

from the Church of Rome, but that the safest course they 
could take was to insist upon an immediate and extraordinary 
vocation from God, And truly, if the premises were true, 
the consequence would be undeniable. 

But have those of the Episcopal Church of England been 
more moderate in their writings? I leave the reader to judge 
whether they have or no. 

Perkins, in his Exposition upon the Creed, (p. 400,) writes 
thus : " We say that before the days of Luther, for the space 
of many hundred years, a universal apostasy overspread the 
whole face of the earth." 

The Book of Homilies, ordered, by the 35th article of reli- 
gion, to be read in churches, as containing a godly and whole- 
some doctrine, in the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry, (3 
part, London, 1687, p. 251,) has these remarkable words : 
*■ Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and 
degrees of men, women, and children, of whole Christendom, 
have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry ; and 
that for the space of eight hundred years and more." 

Mr. Napier, in his book upon the Revelations, (prop. 37, 
p. 68,) writes thus : " From the year of Christ 316, the Anti- 
christian and Papistical reign has begun," &c. 

Dr. Beard, in his book entitled Antichrist the Pope of 
Rome, tells his reader that " the pope has set up a new 
God, namely, a piece of bread in the mass; that he exalts 
himself above all that is God, nay, above God himself." 

Mr. Sutcliff, in his Survey of Popery, writes that " Popery, 
as a sink, has, together with heresies received into itself, most 
gross and heathenish idolatry ; that it is nothing else but a 
pack of old and new heresies; the Romish Church consists 
of a pack of infidels ; that the pope is Antichrist ; that the 
Popish Church has no true bishops or priests; and, finally, 
that Popery, in many points, is more abominable than the 
doctrine of Mahomet." 

Stillingfleet, a doctor and bishop of the Church of Eng- 
land, has written a large volume to prove Roman Catholics 



289 

idolaters ; and Mr. Lesly, in his Case Stated, following Stil- 
lingfleet's system, has employed about thirty pages to prove us 
as rank idolaters as heathens ever were. 

Lastly, a scurrilous libel, entitled A Protestant's Resolu- 
tion, showing his Reasons why he will not be a Papist, writ- 
ten by way of questions and answers, in the form of a cate- 
chism, reprinted several times a few years ago, and industri- 
ously dispersed throughout the kingdom, has the following 
question and answer, p. 10 : — 

" Q,. What was there in the Romish religion that occa- 
sioned Protestants to separate themselves from it?" 

" A. In that it was a superstitious, idolatrous, damnable, 
bloody, traitorous, blind, blasphemous religion." 

This, indeed, is outrageous in the highest degree, and more 
becoming the brutality of a savage, than one that sets up for 
a guide and teacher of Christians. I omit innumerable 
others, to save myself the trouble of transcribing volumes, and 
appeal to the generality of Protestant laics, whether the idea 
of Popery being a religion full of gross errors, superstitions, 
and idolatry, has not been familiar to them from their very 
childhood ; and since such notions are not born with us, they 
must have been instilled into them by their teachers. I pray 
God to convert their hearts, and forgive them the guilt of so 
grievous a sin. 

It is, however, plain and undeniable that the generality of 
Protestants have in a manner conspired together to give this 
foul character of the Church of Rome ; and so they stand 
convicted by their own doctrine and writings, that they can- 
not, without the greatest incoherency, and even absurdity, pre- 
tend to derive a lawful ministry from that Church, for the 
reason I have already often repeated, viz., because an hereti- 
cal or idolatrous church has herself no lawful ministry, and 
therefore cannot communicate it to others. Nay, though a 
person had a lawful mission before, he would forfeit it by 
communicating with such a church : because whoever com- 
municates in sacraments or worship with heretics, schisma- 
tics, or idolaters, becomes guilty of their heresy, schism, or 
25 



290 

idolatry, and is thereby rendered incapable of exercising his 
functions lawfully. And this alone is a convincing proof 
that neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Zuinglius, nor Carolo- 
stadius, nor Bishop Cranmer, nor any of the first reformers, 
could possible have a lawful ordinary mission according to 
their own doctrine, wherein they have represented the Church 
of Rome as an heretical and idolatrous Church ; because they 
had all communicated with her for many years in all her 
sacraments and worship. 

Now, then, I leave Protestants to consider seriously from 
whence they have their ministry or mission. By their blind 
zeal against Popery, and violent hatred to the Church of 
Rome, they have effectually stopped up the channel against 
themselves, through which alone it had passed for fifteen 
hundred years before the reformation ; and when they sepa- 
rated themselves from that Church, as they never incorporated 
themselves into any other society of Christians, so have they been 
from the very beginning, and continue still to be, a separate 
body and communion from all other Christian churches, as 
well as from the Church of Rome ; and so they cannot have 
received their mission from any of these. Neither can they 
have received it from the people or secular magistrate, 
because they have no ecclesiastical power or jurisdiction 
themselves. How, then, do they come by it? It certainly 
behoves them to give a satisfactory answer to this question ; 
because the salvation or damnation of millions of souls de- 
pends upon it. 

Some will perhaps say, that, though the Church of Rome 
be painted in very black colors by great numbers of Protes- 
tant teachers, yet the more moderate part pretend not that 
she has lost the faith, but only obscured it; that the foun- 
dation remains good, but she has built a great deal of stub- 
ble and straw upon it ; that, therefore, she has always had a 
lawful ministry, and, by consequence, a power to communicate 
it to others. But these are all empty words, and serve for noth- 
ing else but to throw a mist before the people's eyes* I 
shall therefore propose two dilemmas to clear the whole matter 



291 

First. Either the Church of Rome is a superstitious and 
idolatrous Church, or not. If she be, she has no lawful minis- 
try, nor, by consequence, a power to communicate it to others. 
If not, what opinion must all rational men have, not only 
of the first reformers, but of the generality of Protestant 
teachers ? Must they not regard them as men void of honor 
and conscience, as seducers, impostors, and the foulest ca- 
lumniators that ever were upon the face of the earth ? 
Nay, must they not think their leaders who still promote or 
countenance this unchristian calumny to be utterly destitute 
of all hopes of salvation, unless they make some public rep- 
aration of honor to their church, which both they and their 
forefathers have slandered in such a notorious manner ? I 
think the matter is beyond all question according to this re- 
ceived maxim of Christian morality — " that the sin of injus- 
tice is incapable of pardon, if restitution be not made." 

Again. Either the Church of Rome is an heretical Church 
or not. If she be, it follows again that she has no lawful 
ministry, nor a power to transmit it to others. If not, there 
follows a train of the most destructive consequences to all 
the reformed churches. For, if she be not an heretical 
church, then her whole faith is orthodox, and it follows that 
the pope's supremacy, the Church's infallibility, transubstan- 
tiation, the sacrifice of mass, the lawfulness of communion 
in one kind, of invoking the saints, and honoring their rel- 
ics, images, and pictures, and many more articles denied 
by the reformed churches, are all articles of revealed faith, 
because they are all proposed as such by the Church of Rome ; 
and if any of them were not revealed truths, she would be 
manifestly guilty of heresy ; because to add to the revealed 
word of God is as much heresy as to detract from it ; that 
is to say, in plainer terms, whatever church declares that to 
be an article of revealed faith, which really is not so, is no 
less an heretical church than that which denies articles of 
faith revealed by God. 

Well, then ; supposing the Church of Rome not to be an 
heretical church, it follows, 1. That she is the true Church of 



292 

Christ; 2. That all the reformed churches have separated 
themselves from the true Church of Christ; 3. That in so 
doing they are all schismatical churches; 4. That they are 
likewise heretical churches in denying the fore-mentioned 
articles proposed by her as revealed truths; and, 5. That, 
being heretical churches, they are incapable of having any 
lawful ministry ; because no man, or society of men, ever had 
a lawful power to preach heresy. This I call a train of con- 
sequences destructive to all the reformed churches, if the 
Church of Rome be not an heretical church ; and if she be 
one, they can have no lawful mission from her ; and so 
they are hemmed in betwixt the two horns of this dilemma, 
one of which must give them a mortal wound, let them turn 
themselves what way they please. 

But it may, perhaps, be asked whether, if the whole Church 
of Christ should fall into heresy or idolatry, there would be no 
possibility, in that case, of a lawful ministry or ordinary mis- 
sion. I answer, 1st, that the case is impossible; because 
Christ has positively promised his Church that " the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against her," (Matt. c. 16, v. 18,) and 
that " he will be with her unto the end of the world." 
Matt. c. 28, v. 20. 

I answer, 2dly, that, if it were possible for the whole Church 
to apostatize, the ecclesiastical ministry or mission, as estab- 
lished upon the footing it now is, would cease of course in 
that case, and an extraordinary vocation would then be abso- 
lutely requisite to authorize persons to establish a new minis- 
try, in case it should please God to form a new church ; which 
was the very principle the first reformers went upon when 
they claimed an extraordinary vocation ; and they argued 
very justly, as I observed before, if it had been true what 
they pretended, that the whole Church was fallen into heresy 
and idolatry. 

There remains, now, but one popular argument to be an- 
swered, viz., that it was not the business of the reformation 
to preach a new faith, or set up a new church, but only to 
bring the Christian religion back to its ancient purity, which 



293 

surely any minister of the gospel may lawfully do. Thou- 
sands of the laity, who know nothing of ecclesiastical his- 
tory, and swallow down without examination whatever their 
guides teach them, have been, and are still, seduced by the 
plausible appearance of this argument. For nothing is more 
certain than that the most ancient Christian religion is that 
which was taught by Christ and his apostles, and the religion 
they taught is most certainly the only true one. When, there- 
fore, the people are confidently told by their ministers, that 
Protestancy is the ancient religion, and believe it upon their 
word, there they stick, fully satisfied, without inquiring any 
further whether it be reallv so or no : whether their ministers 
can prove it as easily as say it ; or whether their averring it 
be a safe bottom to hazard their souls upon. Whereas, if 
they made these inquiries with the sincerity requisite in a 
concern of this importance, they would soon discover their 
state to be the same as that of persons under the delusion of 
a pleasing dream. And, indeed, as long as they continue 
under this delusive dream of having antiquity and the primi- 
tive ages on their side, all endeavors to convince them of 
this or that particular truth is but labor lost, like speeches 
made to persons in a profound sleep. 

For which reason, I refer the reader to the book entitled 
the Shortest Way to end Disputes about Religion, 1 part, 
chap. 4th and 5th, where it is made plain that the doctrine 
commonly known by the odious name of Popery was the 
doctrine of the Catholic Church in the primitive ages, and, by 
consequence, of the apostles themselves. 
25* 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 

Dedication 3 

Introduction 7 

Section I. — Concerning Man's Free Will 11 

II. — Concerning Christ's giving Sufficient Grace to 

all Men 14 

III. — Concerning Christ's Dying for all Mankind 17 

IV. — Concerning the Commandments 19 

V. — Concerning Faith and Justification 25 

VI. — Concerning Good Works 34 

VII. — Concerning Works of Supererogation and Aus- 
terity of Life 42 

VIII. — The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 50 

IX. — Of the Sacrament of Confirmation 67 

X. — Of the Sacrament of Penance 69 

XI. — Of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction 72 

XII. — The Sacrament of Holy Order 73 

XIII. — The Sacrament of Matrimony 75 

XIV. — Of the Sacrifice of the Mass 76 

XV. — Of the Ceremonies of the Church 83 

XVI. — Of the Single Life of Priests and such as have 

vowed Perpetual Chastity 85 

XVII. — Of Antichrist 94 

XVIII. — Of the Chief Pastors of the Church 98 

XIX. — Of Prayer for the Dead, Purgatory, and Indul- 
gences 101 

XX. — Of the Worship and Invocation of Angels and 

Saints 117 

XXI. — Of Images ■. 134 

XXII. — Of the Relics of Saints and Pilgrimages to Holy 

Places 144 

XXIII. — Of the Lord's Prayer and the Doxology 151 

XXIV. — Of Tradition and the Judge of Controversy 153 



296 

FAGZ. 

Section XXV.— Of the Perpetuity and Infallibility of the True 

Church 174 

XXVI. — The Universality and Visibility of the Church 

of Christ 185 

XXVII. — Of the Invisibility of the Protestant (Episco- 
pal) and Presbyterian Churches before Lu- 
ther and Calvin's Time 199 

XXVIII. — The Prophecies of the Old Law concerning 
the Church of Christ are only verified of 

the Roman Catholic Church 211 

XXIX. — Of the Opinions of the Fathers concerning 

the Roman Catholic Church 218 



APPENDIX. 



THE REFORMED CHURCHES PROVED DESTITUTE 

OF A LAWFUL MINISTRY 225 

Introduction 227 

Article I. — No lawful Ministry without a lawful Mission ...239 
II. — The Disagreement amongst Protestants concern- 
ing their Mission ■ 248 

III. — The First "Reformers" had no extraordinary 

Mission 256 

IV. *■*■ No extraordinary Vocation without the Gift of 

Miracles . . 271 

V. — The First "Reformers" had no ordinary Mis- 
sion 280 

VI. *■■ Protestants convicted, from their own Writings, 
that they have no lawful Mission from the 
Chureh of Rome 286 



^ 156 8^ ^ 




7 e ^vT* 

.0* fc «M!^ *o 







o *> a 




»°V 






'**. 



bV 










Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 

v PreservationTechnologies 

f\ ^V + &Cclr**J t <J_P * W0RLD LEA °ER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

« & * * I * * <h* 1 1 1 T* 10 " 150 " Park Drive 

*%V • •- «*«*. ..V^ Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

^tf> 4? »♦!*', ^ V fc «t (724)779-2111 






^°* 






A O* .: 



« 











» I * 














% '°-'* A^ <* ^^ 



* ^ V 



4^ .i 




N. MANCHESTER, 
NDIANA 46962 







5 ^ 



11° A %>*'•"• -V 



> ^ ^ ^V A '> ^ ^ /. 



*\.^X:- 



• >- 



^Ta H 



